The Sun

It doesn't look spherical at all, it looks flat. If it was spherical, it would be brighter at the centre than at the edges. Like this:



This is what a sphere looks like to our two dimensional human eyes. Notice how there are dark areas slowly shading into light areas.

Now go and take a long, hard look at the Sun. It doesn't look like that, does it?

That's a dumb thing to say. The image you just showed is reflecting light from another light source, the fact it's spherical means that light cannot reach all around it, hence the darker areas. The sun, is a light source. Light is pouring off it from every part. Shadow is therefore not created and so the sphere that you presented does not apply to the sun. If this is the kind of argument you use to try and prove your theories, then i find it hard to believe that anyone listens to you.

It doesn't look spherical at all, it looks flat. If it was spherical, it would be brighter at the centre than at the edges. Like this:



This is what a sphere looks like to our two dimensional human eyes. Notice how there are dark areas slowly shading into light areas.

Now go and take a long, hard look at the Sun. It doesn't look like that, does it?

You are absolutely right, it doesn't look like that LOL!   

However,  that picture of a supposedly spherical object has been drawn with light areas to indicate reflection and give the observer the appearance that it is spherical.  The sun, whether it is spherical or flat is producing light so your pictorial representation of a sphere isn't really appropriate, is it? What would be reflecting off something as bright as the sun?

If it is a metallic disc, how do you explain that it always appears to be round to all observers everywhere? If it was a disc it should appear elliptical at times as it moves around.

I'd really love an answer to this question... Why dont the sun and moon not appear ELLIPTICAL from different points of the earth?

sorry for being ot but just for the record: a blue sky is caused by scattering and not refraction

Quote

If it is a metallic disc, how do you explain that it always appears to be round to all observers everywhere? If it was a disc it should appear elliptical at times as it moves around.

I'd really love an answer to this question... Why dont the sun and moon not appear ELLIPTICAL from different points of the earth?

Yeah, an object which appears circular from every vantage point is defined as a sphere, out of the obvious nature of its spherical symmetry. The sun has always been seen as a circle, from every single point on the planet. Therefore, the sun is spherical.

And plus, the point was made that the side of the sun that is facing us is indeed the side of the sun that is facing us. So to see a shadow like that on the sun makes no sense at all, which is why that type of image never appears unless the Earth itself acts as a shadow during an eclipse. The sun is always full, as every point on its surface emits light with an apparent intensity which decreases with the sine of the angle it makes between its surface and ours.

I answered the question already, guys, when I said this:

Quote from: Squat on July 21, 2009, 10:08:01 AM

If it is a metallic disc, how do you explain that it always appears to be round to all observers everywhere? If it was a disc it should appear elliptical at times as it moves around.

The refractory effects of the atmolayer distort and misrepresent the true nature of the firmament. Globularists believe this too (or else the sky being blue would be inexplicable, as well as the convenient space-money excuse that powerful telescopes need to be in space to see properly).

Quote from: Squat on July 21, 2009, 10:08:01 AM

If it is a metallic disc, how do you explain that it always appears to be round to all observers everywhere? If it was a disc it should appear elliptical at times as it moves around.

The refractory effects of the atmolayer distort and misrepresent the true nature of the firmament. Globularists believe this too (or else the sky being blue would be inexplicable, as well as the convenient space-money excuse that powerful telescopes need to be in space to see properly).

What refractory effects?  Atmospheric refraction has the effect of slight squashing the sun/moon as it approaches the horizon, and also lengthening the day.  This can be described by the increasing densitity of the atmosphere near the ground, causing light paths to be turned downwards.  It is applicable to RE and FE models, because both have atmospheric density gradients.

You simply cannot mislead people by saying the atmosphere will just "distort and misrepresent" without explaining why.

You simply cannot mislead people by saying the atmosphere will just "distort and misrepresent" without explaining why.

Don't worry, nobody is going to be misled by the "distort and misrepresent" waffle.

J.McIntyre/dogsplatter/James or whatever he is calling himself today is the biggest fraud on this site.

He claims to be a Zeteticist but denies the observation of his sight and comes up with this "distort and misrepresent" crap to distort and misrepresent the truth of what he sees with his own two eyes (if he has 2 eyes that is). 

Let's face it, if the sun appears as a sphere to all observers everywhere the simplest and most obvious explanation, regardless of the shape of the platform the observer is standing on is that the sun is a sphere. Only in J.Mcintyre/dogplatter/Jame's cloud cuckoo land could it be any different.

People see this site as a joke. I don't. I see it as a circus and guess who I think is the clown?

Your borderline personal attack was very passionately conveyed, but I'm afraid I actually share my cloud cuckoo land with a number of other individuals who also think the sun is a natural massice disc. It is believed by a number of Flat Earthers to be the case, for some of the reasons I have outlined.

If the sun Does not orbit the earth, why does it appear to move about the sky? surely it would be still?

Your borderline personal attack was very passionately conveyed, but I'm afraid I actually share my cloud cuckoo land with a number of other individuals who also think the sun is a natural massice disc. It is believed by a number of Flat Earthers to be the case, for some of the reasons I have outlined.

There is plenty of verifiable evidence that the sun is not a massive metallic disc. There are simple observations that you can do yourself with minimal equipment to show that the sun is not a disc. Admittedly these are a little more difficult at the moment but when more sunspots are evident on the sun it is a simple matter to see the rotation of the sun. The fact that you appear to be unable or unwilling to conduct some simple observations but rely simply on an unfounded belief was the basis for use of the term 'cloud cuckoo land'.

The fact that there are some people that believe that the sun may be a massive metallic disc is neither here nor there. If you want to follow the crowd then that is your choice. If you want to lead the crowd you sometimes may have to justify your statements. In another thread you have drawn a parallel for this new theory on the nature of the sun to Darwin not providing DNA analysis on finches. You state that science is cumulative. I have asked you on that thread and I will ask you on this one; is there any widely accepted scientific evidence that now shows the sun as a flat metallic disc?

Belief is subjective. You like to talk a good game but now it's time to put your money where your mouth is. Be objective for once and provide the evidence for a massive metallic disc sun.

That's all I ask.

Quote from: J. McIntyre on July 21, 2009, 10:13:06 AM

Quote from: Squat on July 21, 2009, 10:08:01 AM

If it is a metallic disc, how do you explain that it always appears to be round to all observers everywhere? If it was a disc it should appear elliptical at times as it moves around.

The refractory effects of the atmolayer distort and misrepresent the true nature of the firmament. Globularists believe this too (or else the sky being blue would be inexplicable, as well as the convenient space-money excuse that powerful telescopes need to be in space to see properly).

What refractory effects?  Atmospheric refraction has the effect of slight squashing the sun/moon as it approaches the horizon, and also lengthening the day.  This can be described by the increasing densitity of the atmosphere near the ground, causing light paths to be turned downwards.  It is applicable to RE and FE models, because both have atmospheric density gradients.

You simply cannot mislead people by saying the atmosphere will just "distort and misrepresent" without explaining why.

I hope that thread will be continued.

Your borderline personal attack was very passionately conveyed, but I'm afraid I actually share my cloud cuckoo land with a number of other individuals who also think the sun is a natural massice disc. It is believed by a number of Flat Earthers to be the case, for some of the reasons I have outlined.

Not trying to drag this further off topic, but you you please explain what you mean by "massice"?  Are you suggesting that the sun and moon are large masses of ice or is massice just a synonym (or typo) for massive?  I've tried searching for the word "massice" but I'm not sure if I'm finding it in the proper context.

I'm pretty sure he meant "massive".

Massice is a term which denotes something being the subject of charge repulsion. A massice disc is a disc which is of like charge to a base object which it is in a repulsive relation to.

When Alpha decay occurs, for example, the ejected helium nucleus is a massice object in relation to the main nucleus. In that case, it is a massice particle, not a massice disc (obviously). The relation between the Alpha particle and the other nucleus is electrostatic force, so the smaller "repulsed" object can be described as being massice.

EDIT: Markjo, it's also pronounced "Mass-ies", it rhymes with "Bernice" and "Release" (not "Mass - Ice")

I tried googling massice. I also looked it up on dictionary.com.

You can do the same and we can compare notes. There's no shame in admitting to a spelling mistake.

I tried googling massice. I also looked it up on dictionary.com.

You can do the same and we can compare notes. There's no shame in admitting to a spelling mistake.

James has been using that term for a long time, so you can take it as given that it's not a spelling error.

Ah, it's a zetetic term. That's why it doesn't show up in the reference books etc. 

I gave you a perfectly concise definition of massicity, I assure you it's not a spelling error, I have employed the term on this site since I can remember, as have others.

Since I am neither an etymologist nor a lexographer, I cannot explicate its origin or why it is not in your dictionary. Bear in mind, a lot of dictionaries do not include the vast number of scientific field-specific terms which exist, since there are millions of them in different fields. Only somebody discussing electrostatic repulsion would ever have cause to use the word "massice", so perhaps it has been omitted from a number of lay-dictionaries. As far as I know it is an accepted term.

I gave you a perfectly concise definition of massicity, I assure you it's not a spelling error, I have employed the term on this site since I can remember, as have others.

Well I used the famous FES 'Search' function. You are right, others have used the word - I am one of them, questioning it's validity. But you know what, there is only one page of the search results for "massice" and you are the only person to use it initially in any discussion. It won't take you or anyone else long to confirm what I have found.

Since I am neither an etymologist nor a lexographer, I cannot explicate its origin or why it is not in your dictionary. Bear in mind, a lot of dictionaries do not include the vast number of scientific field-specific terms which exist, since there are millions of them in different fields. Only somebody discussing electrostatic repulsion would ever have cause to use the word "massice", so perhaps it has been omitted from a number of lay-dictionaries. As far as I know it is an accepted term.

I have searched Google for "massice" - no hits.

I have also searched http://dictionary.reference.com/ for "massice" - no hits.

I have searched Google for "electrostatic repulsion" and gone through the first page of topics and found the word twice. However, when checking further the word has been changed to massive.

You can do all of these searches yourself as can any other member on here but I'm certainly not going to do any more trawling through web pages that come up on the Google search. Alternatively, what you could do is just post up your reference for your definition of the word "massice".  I'm sure it's not too difficult a job, you must have got it from somewhere.  


*Edit*  I've just searched 'New Scientist'  http://www.newscientist.com/search?doSearch=true&query=Massice  

Yep, you guessed it:  

Sorry, there were no results that matched your search.

*edit*  Same result at Nature.com  

I don't need to do all the searches myself because I already know that it's a word.

Anyway, this is going way off topic. Now you know what massice means, I suggest we get back to the Sun, a natural massice disc in relation to the Earth's core.

I don't need to do all the searches myself because I already know that it's a word.

Anyway, this is going way off topic. Now you know what massice means, I suggest we get back to the Sun, a natural massice disc in relation to the Earth's core.

Well, I know what you think it means which is something different to me knowing what it actually means. However, I'd like some other verifiable evidence as to the meaning of the word. Without that, I'm finding it hard to believe anything you write. Sorry, but that's the way it is. I also disagree with it going off topic. If massice is a word and you use it in this discussion then it is probably relevant to the argument. It is better that people understand all aspects of the argument so that they can make a measured answer.

So, give us a reference,  we'll be able to confirm that the word has meaning in the way it is used and we can all move on. At the moment it's only you know what it is supposed to mean; I and maybe others would like confirmation of that.

Bug?nk? işini yarına bırakma.

Quote from: James on July 23, 2009, 03:26:39 AM

I don't need to do all the searches myself because I already know that it's a word.

Anyway, this is going way off topic. Now you know what massice means, I suggest we get back to the Sun, a natural massice disc in relation to the Earth's core.

Well, I know what you think it means which is something different to me knowing what it actually means.

What do you think it means? I've never heard it used to refer to anything other than electrostatic repulsion.

However, I'd like some other verifiable evidence as to the meaning of the word. Without that, I'm finding it hard to believe anything you write. Sorry, but that's the way it is. I also disagree with it going off topic. If massice is a word and you use it in this discussion then it is probably relevant to the argument. It is better that people understand all aspects of the argument so that they can make a measured answer.

So, give us a reference,  we'll be able to confirm that the word has meaning in the way it is used and we can all move on. At the moment it's only you know what it is supposed to mean; I and maybe others would like confirmation of that.

Typical RE tactic - when they run out of ideas, they have to resort to bickering about the meaning of words instead of just conceding. This whole contention is ridiculous. Why do you need "evidence as to the meaning" of a word? This is not an etymology discussion. Etymology has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is the nature of the Sun. You can try and dodge the discussion all you want with word-play and etymology, it doesn't change anything. The Sun is a luminous natural massice disc.

G?neş bal?ıkla sıvanmaz.

Personally, as long as we have a working definition for the word "massice" and it does seem to be used in consistently in its context, then I'm inclined to let it slide.  Even if it isn't a "real" word, James does seem to be using it consistently so maybe we can just consider it a word that he coined for this particular phenomenon (sort of like bendy light, UA, EA or any of the other terms used on this site).  I'm not saying that James is right about the nature of the sun, I'm just trying to help move the debate along.

Massice is a term which denotes something being the subject of charge repulsion. A massice disc is a disc which is of like charge to a base object which it is in a repulsive relation to.

OK, accepting this explanation, what is the base object of like charge that the sun is in a repulsive relationship to?

Quote from: James on July 22, 2009, 03:45:29 PM

Massice is a term which denotes something being the subject of charge repulsion. A massice disc is a disc which is of like charge to a base object which it is in a repulsive relation to.

OK, accepting this explanation, what is the base object of like charge that the sun is in a repulsive relationship to?

The Earth's iron core.

Quote from: Squat on July 23, 2009, 08:37:04 AM

Quote from: James on July 22, 2009, 03:45:29 PM

Massice is a term which denotes something being the subject of charge repulsion. A massice disc is a disc which is of like charge to a base object which it is in a repulsive relation to.

OK, accepting this explanation, what is the base object of like charge that the sun is in a repulsive relationship to?

The Earth's iron core.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that the FE's iron core is molten or is it solid?

Probably a bit of both? There are certainly chambers of molten rock and metal under the Earth. I'm not sure I'd like to go the whole way and say it's all molten, it seems to me that if that were the case, we'd end up sinking into an iron ocean. My grasp of physics tells me that the core may be molten deeper within the Earth, but would become more solid closer to the surface as less pressure would applied to it.

Quote from: Squat on July 23, 2009, 08:37:04 AM

OK, accepting this explanation, what is the base object of like charge that the sun is in a repulsive relationship to?

The Earth's iron core.

Thanks.

Is the disc of the sun perpendicular to the disc of the earth or parallel with it?

Parallel.