the sun

  • 81 Replies
  • 15176 Views
?

mrsym0r

  • 28
  • +0/-0
the sun
« on: August 22, 2009, 05:49:32 AM »
if the sun is a mere 32 miles in diameter, shouldn't it have burnt out by now? If it's just a metallic disc, where is it getting its power?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: the sun
« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2009, 06:45:52 AM »
1. Wrong subforum.
2. The source of energy is still a subject of debate. Personally, I believe that it is probably converting matter and antimatter directly into energy. I also do not believe that it is a metallic disc.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: the sun
« Reply #2 on: August 22, 2009, 06:53:06 AM »
Please read the forum-specific rules and post in the appropriate sections. Moved to Questions & Clarifications.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

Areweonfiya

  • 2686
  • +0/-0
Re: the sun
« Reply #3 on: August 22, 2009, 09:54:05 AM »
If the Sun is a spotlight that moves around the Earth, why do Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, the first of which states that the planet's orbits are ellipses with one focus on the Sun, still work?
 
 
 

*

W

  • 2288
  • +0/-0
Re: the sun
« Reply #4 on: August 22, 2009, 12:53:50 PM »
I really, really like the sun. While much has been written on its influence on contemporary living, its influence on western cinema has not been given proper recognition. It still has the power to shock those most reliant on technology, who form the last great hope for our civilization. Though I would rather be in bed I will now examine the primary causes of the sun. Comparisons between Roman Society and Medieval Society give a clear picture of the importance of the sun to developments in social conduct. I will not insult the readers' intelligence by explaining this obvious comparison any further. When Sir Bernard Chivilary said 'hounds will feast on society' he borrowed much from the sun. While the western world use a knife and fork, the Chinese use chopsticks. Of course the sun demonstrates a coherent approach, something so lacking in our culture, that it is not recognized by all.

Some analysts have been tempted to disregard the sun. I haven?t. It has been said that the one thing in society which could survive a nuclear attack is the sun. This is incorrect, actually cockroaches are the only thing which can survive a nuclear attack. There has been a great deal of discussion in the world of economics, centered on the value of the sun. We will primarily be focusing on the Lead-a-Duck-to-Water model using the median instead of the mean, where possible. When displayed this way it becomes very clear that the sun is of great importance. Seemingly the market value of gold, ultimately decided by politicians, will always be heavily influenced by the sun due to its consistently high profile in the portfolio of investors. The financial press seems unable to make up its mind on these issues which unsettles investors.

Much of the writings of historians display the conquests of the most powerful nations over less powerful ones. Comparing international relations since the end of the century can be like observing the two sides of the sun. Let us consider the words of that silver tongued orator, that most brilliant mind Augstin Bootlegger, 'I don't believe in ghosts, but I do believe in democracy.' Primarily, he is referring to the sun. It is a well known 'secret' that what prompted many politicians to first strive for power was the sun. While the sun may be a giant amongst men, is it a dwarf amongst policy? I hope not. To conclude the sun has, and will continue to be a major building block for the world in which we live. It establishes order, influences the influencers, and figures show it's a winning formula. Here with the final word is Hollywood's Elvis Lopez: 'I would say without a shadow of a doubt: the sun ROCKS!!!' If you catch my drift. ;)
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
  • +1/-0
Re: the sun
« Reply #5 on: August 22, 2009, 06:09:22 PM »
The Sun is a metal massice disc whose surface is bioluminescent. The ridiculous and mistaken notion that the Sun is powered by nuclear fusion is what leads to the misunderstanding by globularists as to the Sun's longevity.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

?

elodbob

  • 71
  • +0/-0
Re: the sun
« Reply #6 on: August 22, 2009, 07:41:08 PM »
Where does its energy come from?

*

W

  • 2288
  • +0/-0
Re: the sun
« Reply #7 on: August 22, 2009, 07:44:49 PM »
Where does its energy come from?

Same as in RE.
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.

?

elodbob

  • 71
  • +0/-0
Re: the sun
« Reply #8 on: August 22, 2009, 07:46:21 PM »
nosir, he just said it was bio-luminescent and didn't do fission.

*

W

  • 2288
  • +0/-0
Re: the sun
« Reply #9 on: August 22, 2009, 07:50:54 PM »
nosir, he just said it was bio-luminescent and didn't do fission.

My beliefs != the beliefs of every flat earther in the world.
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.

?

elodbob

  • 71
  • +0/-0
Re: the sun
« Reply #10 on: August 22, 2009, 08:53:43 PM »
I'd love to know where i asked you for yours. Clearly i was responding to the above post.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: the sun
« Reply #11 on: August 22, 2009, 09:03:04 PM »
I'd love to know where i asked you for yours. Clearly i was responding to the above post.


I'd love to know why you think you have the right to dictate who may or may not post their opinion on a public forum.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

elodbob

  • 71
  • +0/-0
Re: the sun
« Reply #12 on: August 22, 2009, 09:09:53 PM »
Strawman. Well done.

*

W

  • 2288
  • +0/-0
Re: the sun
« Reply #13 on: August 22, 2009, 09:21:39 PM »
I'd love to know where i asked you for yours. Clearly i was responding to the above post.


I'd love to know why you think you have the right to dictate who may or may not post their opinion on a public forum.

Strawman. Well done.

Where's the strawman? Lord Wilmore is correct; it's not up to you to say who can and cannot post their opinion on a public forum.

Besides, you did ask:

Where does its energy come from?

So I answered.
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
  • +1/-0
Re: the sun
« Reply #14 on: August 22, 2009, 09:37:58 PM »
nosir, he just said it was bio-luminescent and didn't do fission.

My beliefs != the beliefs of every flat earther in the world.

So, if the Sun isn't bioluminescent, why hasn't it run out yet? The nuclear processes which globularists (and you as well, apparently) believe power the Sun would completely use up the Sun's material within only a few years. I've certainly apprehended the Sun not running out as long as I have been alive, and all reports seem to indicate that it has been going for rather a long time already before that without burning out!
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

W

  • 2288
  • +0/-0
Re: the sun
« Reply #15 on: August 22, 2009, 09:43:39 PM »
nosir, he just said it was bio-luminescent and didn't do fission.

My beliefs != the beliefs of every flat earther in the world.

So, if the Sun isn't bioluminescent, why hasn't it run out yet? The nuclear processes which globularists (and you as well, apparently) believe power the Sun would completely use up the Sun's material within only a few years. I've certainly apprehended the Sun not running out as long as I have been alive, and all reports seem to indicate that it has been going for rather a long time already before that without burning out!

Actually, your explanation makes more sense to me. I change my mind.
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
  • +1/-0
Re: the sun
« Reply #16 on: August 22, 2009, 09:50:17 PM »
nosir, he just said it was bio-luminescent and didn't do fission.

My beliefs != the beliefs of every flat earther in the world.

So, if the Sun isn't bioluminescent, why hasn't it run out yet? The nuclear processes which globularists (and you as well, apparently) believe power the Sun would completely use up the Sun's material within only a few years. I've certainly apprehended the Sun not running out as long as I have been alive, and all reports seem to indicate that it has been going for rather a long time already before that without burning out!

Actually, your explanation makes more sense to me. I change my mind.

Excellent, I'm glad I have been of help!
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

?

elodbob

  • 71
  • +0/-0
Re: the sun
« Reply #17 on: August 22, 2009, 10:38:18 PM »
First, I didn't say that you weren't allowed to post, merely that you provided nothing useful to this topic.

James, where does the vast amount of energy the sun puts out come from? Where is the 10^23 joules of energy that we're absorbing coming from?

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
  • +1/-0
Re: the sun
« Reply #18 on: August 22, 2009, 10:46:51 PM »
As I have already stated (or at the very least heavily implied), the outer surface of the Sun is alive, and possessing of bioluminescent properties, which is the source of its light.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

?

elodbob

  • 71
  • +0/-0
Re: the sun
« Reply #19 on: August 22, 2009, 10:47:52 PM »
You walked sometime today.  That took energy. That energy came from the breakfast you ate this morning.

It's alive. That's neat. Where does it get the energy necessary to produce the light?

*

W

  • 2288
  • +0/-0
Re: the sun
« Reply #20 on: August 22, 2009, 11:00:40 PM »
nosir, he just said it was bio-luminescent and didn't do fission.

My beliefs != the beliefs of every flat earther in the world.

So, if the Sun isn't bioluminescent, why hasn't it run out yet? The nuclear processes which globularists (and you as well, apparently) believe power the Sun would completely use up the Sun's material within only a few years. I've certainly apprehended the Sun not running out as long as I have been alive, and all reports seem to indicate that it has been going for rather a long time already before that without burning out!

Actually, your explanation makes more sense to me. I change my mind.

Excellent, I'm glad I have been of help!

:)
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.

*

W

  • 2288
  • +0/-0
Re: the sun
« Reply #21 on: August 22, 2009, 11:04:09 PM »
As I have already stated (or at the very least heavily implied), the outer surface of the Sun is alive, and possessing of bioluminescent properties, which is the source of its light.

I have seen the outer surface, back when I was young before I knew not to look directly at the sun. It is white and it looks very much like the back of a spotlight. It is a cone shape with the one face missing. I know because I saw it myself. Naturally, the missing face is where the yellow (light) part is, that we usually think of when we think of the "sun."
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.

?

Squat

Re: the sun
« Reply #22 on: August 22, 2009, 11:32:48 PM »
As I have already stated (or at the very least heavily implied), the outer surface of the Sun is alive, and possessing of bioluminescent properties, which is the source of its light.


What is the source of the heat we feel from 'your' bio-luminescent sun?

*

W

  • 2288
  • +0/-0
Re: the sun
« Reply #23 on: August 23, 2009, 01:55:57 AM »
As I have already stated (or at the very least heavily implied), the outer surface of the Sun is alive, and possessing of bioluminescent properties, which is the source of its light.


What is the source of the heat we feel from 'your' bio-luminescent sun?

The light... I think light naturally results in heat. Even when you hold your hand up to a light bulb it feels warm.
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.

?

Squat

Re: the sun
« Reply #24 on: August 23, 2009, 04:36:41 AM »
As I have already stated (or at the very least heavily implied), the outer surface of the Sun is alive, and possessing of bioluminescent properties, which is the source of its light.


What is the source of the heat we feel from 'your' bio-luminescent sun?

The light... I think light naturally results in heat. Even when you hold your hand up to a light bulb it feels warm.
Really?

A light bulb isn't exactly bio-luminescent is it. You do know what bio-luminescence is, yes?

?

Daecarus

Re: the sun
« Reply #25 on: August 23, 2009, 04:53:18 AM »
As I have already stated (or at the very least heavily implied), the outer surface of the Sun is alive, and possessing of bioluminescent properties, which is the source of its light.


What is the source of the heat we feel from 'your' bio-luminescent sun?

The light... I think light naturally results in heat. Even when you hold your hand up to a light bulb it feels warm.

I'm sure you know the heat doesn't come from the light but from the bulb that heats up inside, yes?

?

Anduie

  • 341
  • +0/-0
Re: the sun
« Reply #26 on: August 23, 2009, 07:07:01 AM »
I'm sure you know the heat doesn't come from the light but from the bulb that heats up inside, yes?

You got it the wrong way. The light is a result of the heat, not the heat is the result of a light.

?

djrelc

  • 45
  • +0/-0
Re: the sun
« Reply #27 on: August 23, 2009, 07:15:28 AM »
I'm sure you know the heat doesn't come from the light but from the bulb that heats up inside, yes?

You got it the wrong way. The light is a result of the heat, not the heat is the result of a light.


The heat comes from the element producing the light, that is just one way of producing light .
Led lights give of no heat as there is no element.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
  • +1/-0
Re: the sun
« Reply #28 on: August 23, 2009, 07:53:53 AM »
As I have already stated (or at the very least heavily implied), the outer surface of the Sun is alive, and possessing of bioluminescent properties, which is the source of its light.


What is the source of the heat we feel from 'your' bio-luminescent sun?

The Sun belongs to everyone, Squat! And it produces heat for the same reason your arm is hotter than room temperature, and the same reason an elk carcass steams in the snow. Alive stuff is warm, especially when there is a lot of it and it is bioluminescent.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: the sun
« Reply #29 on: August 23, 2009, 07:57:03 AM »
Please note that not all FEers adhere to Mr.Mcintyre's models of the Sun.