An astronomy picture taken from a common camera

Time to improve the content to spam ratio of this thread.

*ahem*

As any amateur astronomer knows, the stars orbit the South Celestial Poles in the opposite direction to that in which they orbit the North Celestial Pole. The only way that this is possible in FET is if there is some line where the stars converge and then subsequently diverge, which happens to be the Celestial Equator.

...

Let's just check the facts in the first paragraph. We can always go on to the others if RS is making any sense.

RS says that any amateur astronomer knows

1) There are more than 1 SCP. Nope. There's only one as far as every amateur astronomer sees. Since I'm an amateur astronomer and  since I don't know that there are more than one. SR's statement is falsified.
2) Stars orbit in the opposite direction. If RS means that the stars orbit the NP counter-clockwise and the SP clockwise, then he's right. However, the stars all move from east to west, with the exception of the pole stars.

Now even though, we've shown him wrong, let's continue this as an academic exercise.

Now, there are three major landmasses in the southern hemiplane, and each sees the same constellations. Therefore, there must be at least three South Celestial Poles, each with its own (identical) set of stars, plus a single North Celestial Pole in the centre. This idea is best imagined as a set of "celestial gears" - but try not to take the analogy too far; there is no evidence that the stars are etched onto anything solid that may be termed a "gear".

...

RS dodges the issue. How many SCPs does FE require. The answer is one for every observer, including cameras, on the planet, and not just those in the SH. Northern observers see southern stars rotate. Each observer sees the SCP due south and at the RE predicted angle. So there are at least 6.6 billion SCPs and just as many "gears". Now ask yourself this question? Which provides a simpler explanation for more predictions more accurately? That's right! RE is the better model.

Quote from: hi on March 17, 2009, 11:15:41 AM

Robosteve all you are doing is making up stuff and misinturpurtating the facts for a FET, that's all you and your FE friends do.

Please be more open minded and learn fact from delusion.

Sure, I'm going to listen to the guy with 230 posts.

Well honestly I only posted that to track this topic in my updates section, every time I hit to notify me on a topic it never does so it forces me to post even if I don't want to.

 

Let's just check the facts in the first paragraph. We can always go on to the others if RS is making any sense.

RS says that any amateur astronomer knows

1) There are more than 1 SCP. Nope. There's only one as far as every amateur astronomer sees. Since I'm an amateur astronomer and  since I don't know that there are more than one. SR's statement is falsified.
2) Stars orbit in the opposite direction. If RS means that the stars orbit the NP counter-clockwise and the SP clockwise, then he's right. However, the stars all move from east to west, with the exception of the pole stars.

Now even though, we've shown him wrong, let's continue this as an academic exercise.

1. The number of SCPs is not important to that part of my post. What is important is that if you look at the NCP, the stars appear to go the other way compared to looking at a SCP.

2. I appreciate your admission that the stars do indeed orbit the celestial poles; this is strong evidence for FET, as in RET they don't orbit anything but the galactic centre (and occasionally each other).

RS dodges the issue. How many SCPs does FE require. The answer is one for every observer, including cameras, on the planet, and not just those in the SH. Northern observers see southern stars rotate. Each observer sees the SCP due south and at the RE predicted angle. So there are at least 6.6 billion SCPs and just as many "gears". Now ask yourself this question? Which provides a simpler explanation for more predictions more accurately? That's right! RE is the better model.

No, there are at most six or seven SCPs. The southern landmasses are curved around their respective SCPs compared to the way REers think they are shaped; when we get an accurate Flat Earth map, this will become obvious. In fact, it is the RE maps that are skewed, in an attempt to fit continents on a Flat Earth into a situation with only one South Celestial Pole.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 17, 2009, 04:22:12 PM

Let's just check the facts in the first paragraph. We can always go on to the others if RS is making any sense.

RS says that any amateur astronomer knows

1) There are more than 1 SCP. Nope. There's only one as far as every amateur astronomer sees. Since I'm an amateur astronomer and  since I don't know that there are more than one. SR's statement is falsified.
2) Stars orbit in the opposite direction. If RS means that the stars orbit the NP counter-clockwise and the SP clockwise, then he's right. However, the stars all move from east to west, with the exception of the pole stars.

Now even though, we've shown him wrong, let's continue this as an academic exercise.

1. The number of SCPs is not important to that part of my post. What is important is that if you look at the NCP, the stars appear to go the other way compared to looking at a SCP.

As long as you require more than 1 SCP, then FE is more complex and less predictive. Again, no they go in the same direction in both models. RET is the better model, again.

2. I appreciate your admission that the stars do indeed orbit the celestial poles; this is strong evidence for FET, as in RET they don't orbit anything but the galactic centre (and occasionally each other).

No, RET better describes the orbits observed. Do pay attention. FET requires many SCPs, while RET requires only one. It wins, again.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 17, 2009, 04:22:12 PM

RS dodges the issue. How many SCPs does FE require. The answer is one for every observer, including cameras, on the planet, and not just those in the SH. Northern observers see southern stars rotate. Each observer sees the SCP due south and at the RE predicted angle. So there are at least 6.6 billion SCPs and just as many "gears". Now ask yourself this question? Which provides a simpler explanation for more predictions more accurately? That's right! RE is the better model.

No, there are at most six or seven SCPs. The southern landmasses are curved around their respective SCPs compared to the way REers think they are shaped; when we get an accurate Flat Earth map, this will become obvious. In fact, it is the RE maps that are skewed, in an attempt to fit continents on a Flat Earth into a situation with only one South Celestial Pole.

Yet another claim, unsupported by fact: "No, there are at most six or seven SCPs." You loose all credibility, again.

Call up eight different observers in South America right now. Ask each with the Southern Cross is. They'll all answer due south and at the altitude RE predicted. That means each observer must have his or her own SCP. You can also keep calling for a long time, getting yet another unique answer.

Obviously RET is superior even if FET requires just more than 1 SCP.

As long as you require more than 1 SCP, then FE is more complex and less predictive. Again, no they go in the same direction in both models. RET is the better model, again.

So which direction do the stars turn? Clockwise or counterclockwise?

No, RET better describes the orbits observed. Do pay attention. FET requires many SCPs, while RET requires only one. It wins, again.

RET requires billions of large, hot, nuclear furnaces in the sky; FET requires one (though it may not be nuclear powered in FET). FET wins, again.

Yet another claim, unsupported by fact: "No, there are at most six or seven SCPs." You loose all credibility, again.

It was an educated guess. You said it yourself; the more SCPs are required, the more complex the theory. Why overcomplicate something when it can be kept relatively simple?

Call up eight different observers in South America right now. Ask each with the Southern Cross is. They'll all answer due south and at the altitude RE predicted. That means each observer must have his or her own SCP. You can also keep calling for a long time, getting yet another unique answer.

Please read my posts before responding to them. It will save you keystrokes and allow me to give you more meaningful responses than simply directing you to my previous post.

Obviously RET is superior even if FET requires just more than 1 SCP.

As I said before, nuclear furnaces in the sky...

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 17, 2009, 07:46:34 PM

As long as you require more than 1 SCP, then FE is more complex and less predictive. Again, no they go in the same direction in both models. RET is the better model, again.

So which direction do the stars turn? Clockwise or counterclockwise?

East to West.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 17, 2009, 07:46:34 PM

No, RET better describes the orbits observed. Do pay attention. FET requires many SCPs, while RET requires only one. It wins, again.

RET requires billions of large, hot, nuclear furnaces in the sky; FET requires one (though it may not be nuclear powered in FET). FET wins, again.

You present even more wild speculation as fact. FET offers no explanation as to the reason the stars shine, dim, brighten, or explode. RET does. RET is clearly the better model in this case

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 17, 2009, 07:46:34 PM

Yet another claim, unsupported by fact: "No, there are at most six or seven SCPs." You loose all credibility, again.

It was an educated guess. You said it yourself; the more SCPs are required, the more complex the theory. Why overcomplicate something when it can be kept relatively simple?

You fail to see the point. You consistently and illogically present wild guesses as fact. Please, please correct your ways. You're forced by scientific observation to have billions of SCPs in FET. You need to deal with it and its obviously damning complications. RET is clearly the better model, again.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 17, 2009, 07:46:34 PM

Call up eight different observers in South America right now. Ask each with the Southern Cross is. They'll all answer due south and at the altitude RE predicted. That means each observer must have his or her own SCP. You can also keep calling for a long time, getting yet another unique answer.

Please read my posts before responding to them. It will save you keystrokes and allow me to give you more meaningful responses than simply directing you to my previous post.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 17, 2009, 07:46:34 PM

Obviously RET is superior even if FET requires just more than 1 SCP.

As I said before, nuclear furnaces in the sky...

And as I said before, FET fails to explain the stars and their mechanisms and that leads directly to the conclusion that RET is superior to FET in this analysis as well.

East to West.

So they do appear to turn in different directions depending on which celestial pole you face. You have just contradicted your earlier statement that they do not. How am I supposed to take any of your arguments seriously when you are being so inconsistent?

You present even more wild speculation as fact. FET offers no explanation as to the reason the stars shine, dim, brighten, or explode. RET does. RET is clearly the better model in this case

Has any physicist on Earth ever proven that a sustained protium to helium-4 fusion reaction is possible in a laboratory? If the answer is "no", then RET has no better explanation for this process than FET does. It is up to you to provide evidence to the contrary if you wish to have RET taken seriously.

You fail to see the point. You consistently and illogically present wild guesses as fact. Please, please correct your ways. You're forced by scientific observation to have billions of SCPs in FET. You need to deal with it and its obviously damning complications. RET is clearly the better model, again.

"Billions"? When did I claim that there were billions of South Celestial Poles in FET? You were the one who made that claim; if I start claiming ridiculous things about RET, can I disprove it that way too?

And as I said before, FET fails to explain the stars and their mechanisms and that leads directly to the conclusion that RET is superior to FET in this analysis as well.

I am not aware of any major shortcomings in the FE model of the heavens. If you can think of any, please describe them.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 18, 2009, 02:42:24 AM

East to West.

So they do appear to turn in different directions depending on which celestial pole you face. You have just contradicted your earlier statement that they do not. How am I supposed to take any of your arguments seriously when you are being so inconsistent?

I was precise and accurate. You need to read more carefully.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 18, 2009, 02:42:24 AM

You present even more wild speculation as fact. FET offers no explanation as to the reason the stars shine, dim, brighten, or explode. RET does. RET is clearly the better model in this case

Has any physicist on Earth ever proven that a sustained protium to helium-4 fusion reaction is possible in a laboratory? If the answer is "no", then RET has no better explanation for this process than FET does. It is up to you to provide evidence to the contrary if you wish to have RET taken seriously.

Wrong. You attack a strawman. RETs provide a wealth of data and math to support its claim of stellar fusion. That there is work yet to be done is not relevant. The issue is which theory has the superior predictive value. RET clearly does.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 18, 2009, 02:42:24 AM

You fail to see the point. You consistently and illogically present wild guesses as fact. Please, please correct your ways. You're forced by scientific observation to have billions of SCPs in FET. You need to deal with it and its obviously damning complications. RET is clearly the better model, again.

"Billions"? When did I claim that there were billions of South Celestial Poles in FET? You were the one who made that claim; if I start claiming ridiculous things about RET, can I disprove it that way too?

Again you attack a strawman. Do pay better attention. Observations force FET to have billions of SCPs, as I have explained. It's one for every observer.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 18, 2009, 02:42:24 AM

And as I said before, FET fails to explain the stars and their mechanisms and that leads directly to the conclusion that RET is superior to FET in this analysis as well.

I am not aware of any major shortcomings in the FE model of the heavens. If you can think of any, please describe them.

I've already listed many of them in this thread. Do pay attention. FET cannot explain how stars shine, brighten, dim, or explode. In addition, FET cannot explain the transits and occultations, and phases of the inner planets. In addition, FET cannot explain the retrograde motion of the outer planets. In addition, FET cannot explain the path of comets or interloping asteroids.

Has any physicist on Earth ever proven that a sustained protium to helium-4 fusion reaction is possible in a laboratory?

Your question should be - Has any physicist on Earth ever proven that a sustained protium to helium-4 fusion reaction is possible.
Doing it actually itself isn't important.

Quote from: Obamabam on March 17, 2009, 10:17:19 AM

Wrong. The picture was taken in Haute Provence, France. Is that where the celestial gears join? Or maybe the celestial gears join at every other point where star trail photos were taken. Hmm. Lots of gears.

The camera angle is not directly upward; it is directed at the sort of angle you would expect to find the Celestial Equator from France.

You know this how? Can you tell that the camera is pointing to the equator?

You still have not provided an explanation for this photograph using RET.

Yes I have. And many others have. Read my posts. Lurk moar. Troll less.

Your question should be - Has any physicist on Earth ever proven that a sustained protium to helium-4 fusion reaction is possible.
Doing it actually itself isn't important.

How can it be proven unless it can be physically shown that it is possible? As far as I know, all attempts at creating such a reaction on Earth have resulted in devastating effects and have been very short-lived, indicating that stars should be exploding the instant they form.

You know this how? Can you tell that the camera is pointing to the equator?

Assuming that your ridiculous claim that RET can explain this picture equally well is true, it would need to be pointing at the equator in either theory. If you are claiming that it is not, I suggest you provide an explanation for such behaviour at other celestial latitudes.

Yes I have. And many others have. Read my posts. Lurk moar. Troll less.

No you haven't. You've made the claim that it is a representation of the inside of an imaginary sphere with no quantitative analysis to prove that that is the result to be expected from such a thing.

Quote from: zork on March 18, 2009, 03:42:13 AM

Your question should be - Has any physicist on Earth ever proven that a sustained protium to helium-4 fusion reaction is possible.
Doing it actually itself isn't important.

How can it be proven unless it can be physically shown that it is possible? As far as I know, all attempts at creating such a reaction on Earth have resulted in devastating effects and have been very short-lived, indicating that stars should be exploding the instant they form.

What does the fusing of a few milligrams of material in a lab have to do with the sun fusing many tons of material per second? 

Interesting how no FE'er has commented on this yet......

We have to wade through all the bullshit to find topics worth discussing.  Don't worry we will get to you eventually.


BTW The answer is the celestial gears.

What does the fusing of a few milligrams of material in a lab have to do with the sun fusing many tons of material per second? 

It is the same physical process.

How can it be proven unless it can be physically shown that it is possible? As far as I know, all attempts at creating such a reaction on Earth have resulted in devastating effects and have been very short-lived, indicating that stars should be exploding the instant they form.

I would imagine that being close to a star would be fairly similar to 'devastating effects'. And The sun is exploding, it's just that it's exploding in an environment where it's being pulled back in with a force nearly 30 times stronger than that which is keeping you attached to the planet.

But it's got little to do with the discussion. Attempts to replicate the system used in the FE sun have been even less successful, so why hold with that model?

Assuming that your ridiculous claim that RET can explain this picture equally well is true, it would need to be pointing at the equator in either theory. If you are claiming that it is not, I suggest you provide an explanation for such behaviour at other celestial latitudes.

Now now, the equator would be South in the Northern hemisphere, and North in the Southern hemisphere. The camera is pointing in the direction the stars are setting, so it's going to be facing west.

No you haven't. You've made the claim that it is a representation of the inside of an imaginary sphere with no quantitative analysis to prove that that is the result to be expected from such a thing.

Well, star charts have always worked for me. All the analysis I've done seems to suggest the model works.

I would imagine that being close to a star would be fairly similar to 'devastating effects'. And The sun is exploding, it's just that it's exploding in an environment where it's being pulled back in with a force nearly 30 times stronger than that which is keeping you attached to the planet.

Really? What force is that?

But it's got little to do with the discussion. Attempts to replicate the system used in the FE sun have been even less successful, so why hold with that model?

FET only requires one Sun. RET requires billions of exploding balls of gas all over the Universe. Which is the simpler theory?

Now now, the equator would be South in the Northern hemisphere, and North in the Southern hemisphere. The camera is pointing in the direction the stars are setting, so it's going to be facing west.

So stars only set due west, do they? They converge from all over the sky to a single point in the west to vanish beyond the horizon? And everywhere on Earth sees this same effect?

Well, star charts have always worked for me. All the analysis I've done seems to suggest the model works.

That has nothing to do with this photograph.

Really? What force is that?

The magical attractive force that's observed in everything we see.

FET only requires one Sun. RET requires billions of exploding balls of gas all over the Universe. Which is the simpler theory?

The RE theory, as they can all be explained with the same basic model. The FE model requires all kinds of things to explain what's going on up there.

Besides, the FE model requires masses of little points of light all over the Night sky. Why do you feel it's OK for the FE model to have lots of things, but it's not OK for the RE model to have something similar?

So stars only set due west, do they? They converge from all over the sky to a single point in the west to vanish beyond the horizon? And everywhere on Earth sees this same effect?

I'm sure you know what I mean.

That has nothing to do with this photograph.

Star charts are based off a flat projection of the inside of the sphere. They accurately represent what we see at night, and they'll accurately represent what's in that photo.

Quote from: zork on March 18, 2009, 03:42:13 AM

Your question should be - Has any physicist on Earth ever proven that a sustained protium to helium-4 fusion reaction is possible.
Doing it actually itself isn't important.

How can it be proven unless it can be physically shown that it is possible? As far as I know, all attempts at creating such a reaction on Earth have resulted in devastating effects and have been very short-lived, indicating that stars should be exploding the instant they form.

I am stunned. Are you really a physics student or you lied in that message? http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26149.msg652439#msg652439
 If you really are then you can go and debate a little about that with your physics professor and not bother me requiring to teach you physics.

FET only requires one Sun. RET requires billions of exploding balls of gas all over the Universe. Which is the simpler theory?

FET requires on Sun from which we don't know anything and who knows many small dots in sky which are really... what?

Quote from: markjo on March 18, 2009, 01:15:59 PM

What does the fusing of a few milligrams of material in a lab have to do with the sun fusing many tons of material per second? 

It is the same physical process.

The fusion itself, yes.  The processes that cause the fusion, nope.  The immense gravitation of the sun causes hydrogen atoms to fuse.  To the best of my knowledge, gravitation generators capable of similar results are not yet available.

We can discuss the processes going on in the sun through spectroscopic studies. I don't think we are drawing that many parallels with the lab. After all lab fusion does not use the same chains as stars in general. Although those in labs will form a subset of the processes in stars.

I am stunned. Are you really a physics student or you lied in that message? http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26149.msg652439#msg652439
 If you really are then you can go and debate a little about that with your physics professor and not bother me requiring to teach you physics.

My physics professor is not the one attempting to convince me that there are billions upon billions of nuclear explosions that have somehow managed to stabilise themselves all over the Universe. We are currently studying optics.

FET requires on Sun from which we don't know anything and who knows many small dots in sky which are really... what?

They are probably fairly small balls of dust which are heated by the Sun as it passes by. It is likely that they do not generate their own energy.

The fusion itself, yes.  The processes that cause the fusion, nope.  The immense gravitation of the sun causes hydrogen atoms to fuse.  To the best of my knowledge, gravitation generators capable of similar results are not yet available.

What is the fictitious force on a proton in the centre of the Sun's core due to gravitation, as measured by an external observer?

We can discuss the processes going on in the sun through spectroscopic studies. I don't think we are drawing that many parallels with the lab. After all lab fusion does not use the same chains as stars in general. Although those in labs will form a subset of the processes in stars.

So you admit that it has not been proven that the processes thought to occur in stars all over the Universe according to RET are even possible?

Quote from: markjo on March 18, 2009, 08:31:44 PM

The fusion itself, yes.  The processes that cause the fusion, nope.  The immense gravitation of the sun causes hydrogen atoms to fuse.  To the best of my knowledge, gravitation generators capable of similar results are not yet available.

What is the fictitious force on a proton in the centre of the Sun's core due to gravitation, as measured by an external observer?

Sorry, but I'm not that versed in the intricacies of the strong nuclear force.  Maybe bowler could help you with that.

Sorry, but I'm not that versed in the intricacies of the strong nuclear force.  Maybe bowler could help you with that.

I was asking about the fictitious gravitational force. Please read my posts before responding.

Quote from: markjo on March 19, 2009, 06:09:20 AM

Sorry, but I'm not that versed in the intricacies of the strong nuclear force.  Maybe bowler could help you with that.

I was asking about the fictitious gravitational force. Please read my posts before responding.

You do realize that the effects of the strong nuclear force are much more significant to a proton than the force of gravitation, right?

You do realize that the effects of the strong nuclear force are much more significant to a proton than the force of gravitation, right?

You are the one claiming that gravitation causes hydrogen atoms to fuse - which, by the way, is incorrect usage of the word "atom". If you have changed your mind regarding your previous statement, I will stop attempting to discredit it.

Quote from: zork on March 18, 2009, 02:32:14 PM

I am stunned. Are you really a physics student or you lied in that message? http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26149.msg652439#msg652439
 If you really are then you can go and debate a little about that with your physics professor and not bother me requiring to teach you physics.

My physics professor is not the one attempting to convince me that there are billions upon billions of nuclear explosions that have somehow managed to stabilise themselves all over the Universe. We are currently studying optics.

Have you asked it from them? And I don't get the point of asking it from me, if you have school full of smarter men than I am. But I guess you are afraid to ask. Why else go and ask from people who know less when you have people right at your side who know more.

Quote from: zork on March 18, 2009, 02:32:14 PM

FET requires on Sun from which we don't know anything and who knows many small dots in sky which are really... what?

They are probably fairly small balls of dust which are heated by the Sun as it passes by. It is likely that they do not generate their own energy.

 I didn't ask what they probably are, I asked what they are.

Have you asked it from them? And I don't get the point of asking it from me, if you have school full of smarter men than I am. But I guess you are afraid to ask. Why else go and ask from people who know less when you have people right at your side who know more.

Stop trying to divert attention from the fact that RET has no solid explanation for how the stars shine.

I didn't ask what they probably are, I asked what they are.

There is no such thing as a scientific fact. All theories are open to revision, modification and/or abandonment. My personal theory is that they are balls of dust that are heated by the Sun - a phenomenon which, unlike nuclear fusion, has been proven to be a viable method of producing light in laboratories on Earth.

,,,
There is no such thing as a scientific fact. All theories are open to revision, modification and/or abandonment. My personal theory is that they are balls of dust that are heated by the Sun - a phenomenon which, unlike nuclear fusion, has been proven to be a viable method of producing light in laboratories on Earth.

Oh dear, you really must be having trouble.

1) You need to study science more. There are Scientific Facts. Please reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science

2) You need to substantiate your claim that dust balls heated by the Sun have been proven to be viable method of producing light in laboratories on Earth. Remember you've got to show that the Sun with its spotlight pointed down can heat dust balls in a plane above, without illuminating them, to the point that they glow, and do so uniformly regardless of distance from the Sun over the course of the day.

3) You're wrong. Nuclear fusion has been shown in Earth-based laboratories to produce light. Please review any video of an above-ground H-Bomb test.

Quote from: markjo on March 19, 2009, 06:26:41 AM

You do realize that the effects of the strong nuclear force are much more significant to a proton than the force of gravitation, right?

You are the one claiming that gravitation causes hydrogen atoms to fuse - which, by the way, is incorrect usage of the word "atom". If you have changed your mind regarding your previous statement, I will stop attempting to discredit it.

Perhaps this link will answer your question: http://www.tim-thompson.com/fusion.html

Quote from: zork on March 19, 2009, 08:15:12 AM

Have you asked it from them? And I don't get the point of asking it from me, if you have school full of smarter men than I am. But I guess you are afraid to ask. Why else go and ask from people who know less when you have people right at your side who know more.

Stop trying to divert attention from the fact that RET has no solid explanation for how the stars shine.

Yes, it has and I say quite clearly that you have people who can explain it right by your side almost every day. But I see also that you clearly refuse to ask from them. Why, if I may ask? I can see that you can write but maybe you have some speaking related disabilities which may explains the reluctance to actually speak with someone.

Quote from: zork on March 19, 2009, 08:15:12 AM

I didn't ask what they probably are, I asked what they are.

There is no such thing as a scientific fact. All theories are open to revision, modification and/or abandonment. My personal theory is that they are balls of dust that are heated by the Sun - a phenomenon which, unlike nuclear fusion, has been proven to be a viable method of producing light in laboratories on Earth.

As you was shown earlier, there is. And you don't have theory, you just let your fantasy fly high and speak whatever comes to your mind.