« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..

  • 68 Replies
  • 15239 Views
?

EireEngineer

  • 1204
  • +0/-0
  • Woo Nemesis
Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« on: October 20, 2009, 06:00:57 PM »
So....if the sun and the moon are just big disks of metal then how come we can see very un-metal like behavior when we look at them through a telescope? A metal disk would not have craters with obvious signs of ejecta.  Nor would it have a corona, or giant flares of gass erupting from its surface.  I suppose sunspots are just spots of tarnish on the surface that are periodically cleaned off by the cosmic maid?
Logged
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-78
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #1 on: October 21, 2009, 10:38:15 AM »
They likely aren't large metal plates.
Logged
If you can't argu both si?des, youu understand ngeiter
?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3125
  • +0/-0
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #2 on: October 24, 2009, 10:17:39 AM »
They definitely aren't - you can't bounce a radar signal off the sun.
Logged
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #3 on: October 25, 2009, 04:17:12 AM »
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on October 24, 2009, 10:17:39 AM
They definitely aren't - you can't bounce a radar signal off the sun.

How do you know?
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3125
  • +0/-0
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #4 on: October 25, 2009, 04:40:06 AM »
Quote from: Parsifal on October 25, 2009, 04:17:12 AM
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on October 24, 2009, 10:17:39 AM
They definitely aren't - you can't bounce a radar signal off the sun.

How do you know?

Because it's been tried, dum dum. As it has with many other celestial objects.
Logged
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #5 on: October 25, 2009, 08:51:14 AM »
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on October 25, 2009, 04:40:06 AM
Because it's been tried, dum dum. As it has with many other celestial objects.

So you don't know that it can't be done, only that nobody has done it.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3125
  • +0/-0
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #6 on: October 25, 2009, 10:33:06 AM »
Quote from: Parsifal on October 25, 2009, 08:51:14 AM
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on October 25, 2009, 04:40:06 AM
Because it's been tried, dum dum. As it has with many other celestial objects.

So you don't know that it can't be done, only that nobody has done it.

I know that if it was a metal disc, it would have been successful. Given that you think Venus can absorb radar pulses, hold on to them a while then emit them later as a shockwave, your knowledge of radar is so paltry that you probably have no valid contribution to make regarding anything about it.
Logged
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.
?

Rational U.S. Viking

  • 437
  • +0/-0
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #7 on: October 25, 2009, 04:55:58 PM »
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on October 24, 2009, 10:17:39 AM
They definitely aren't - you can't bounce a radar signal off the sun.

I'm not so sure that it can't be done.  Of course, it would be extremely difficult to detect the returning, reflected signal in the midst of all the solar radiation coming from the same direction, but impossible?  I'm not so sure of that.

Of course, if the sun were really a globe or a disc only 32 miles across and only 3,000 miles or so high, it would have been accomplished long ago (and, probably kept a secret by the mythical RET conspiracy ::).
« Last Edit: October 25, 2009, 05:01:59 PM by Rational U.S. Viking »
Logged
?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3125
  • +0/-0
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #8 on: October 25, 2009, 05:06:31 PM »
Quote from: Rational U.S. Viking on October 25, 2009, 04:55:58 PM
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on October 24, 2009, 10:17:39 AM
They definitely aren't - you can't bounce a radar signal off the sun.

I'm not so sure that it can't be done.  Of course, it would be extremely difficult to detect the returning, reflected signal in the midst of all the solar radiation coming from the same direction, but impossible?  I'm not so sure of that.

Of course, if the sun were really a globe or a disc only 32 miles across and only 3,000 miles or so high, it would have been accomplished long ago (and, probably kept a secret by the mythical RET conspiracy ::).

The Sun doesn't have a solid surface to reflect a radar beam. It gradually increases in density as one goes deeper in. I agree that a reflected signal would be difficult to detect amid the solar radiation though. The solar radiation on its own is enough to prove it's not a metal disc.
Logged
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.
?

Rational U.S. Viking

  • 437
  • +0/-0
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #9 on: October 25, 2009, 06:55:45 PM »
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on October 25, 2009, 05:06:31 PM
Quote from: Rational U.S. Viking on October 25, 2009, 04:55:58 PM
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on October 24, 2009, 10:17:39 AM
They definitely aren't - you can't bounce a radar signal off the sun.

I'm not so sure that it can't be done.  Of course, it would be extremely difficult to detect the returning, reflected signal in the midst of all the solar radiation coming from the same direction, but impossible?  I'm not so sure of that.

Of course, if the sun were really a globe or a disc only 32 miles across and only 3,000 miles or so high, it would have been accomplished long ago (and, probably kept a secret by the mythical RET conspiracy ::).

The Sun doesn't have a solid surface to reflect a radar beam. It gradually increases in density as one goes deeper in. I agree that a reflected signal would be difficult to detect amid the solar radiation though. The solar radiation on its own is enough to prove it's not a metal disc.

I understand all that, and that the beam would not all be reflected from a single distinct surface or layer, which would further complicate the nature of the return signal and make it even harder to detect, but the sun is essentially a giant ball of plasma, and we know that plasmas reflect radar signals.
Logged
?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3125
  • +0/-0
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #10 on: October 25, 2009, 07:23:54 PM »
Plasma is good - it's not metal at least! I didn't know plasma could reflect radio signals though thinking about it, I suppose it would, like the ionosphere. Maybe the frequencies usable by radar limit it in some way. I'm not an expert, though I do know more than Parsifal about radar.
Logged
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.
*

Its a Sphere

  • 1490
  • +0/-0
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #11 on: October 29, 2009, 04:44:30 AM »
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on October 25, 2009, 07:23:54 PM
Plasma is good - it's not metal at least! I didn't know plasma could reflect radio signals though thinking about it, I suppose it would, like the ionosphere. Maybe the frequencies usable by radar limit it in some way. I'm not an expert, though I do know more than Parsifal about radar.

Perhaps it is the anti-sun which absorbs all of the radar signal and doesn't allow it pass through and is completely undetectable by any scientific method. 

Or maybe it could be the sky mirror and this information could lead us to discover what material it is made of knowing that it completely reflects sunlight, absorbs all radar energy and reflects none, doesn't reflect any other cellestial object including ones that themselves reflect sunlight, allows asteroids to pass through, doesn't block any other object that would be behind it and is completely immune to any thermal gradient inherent in space resulting in no distortion of the mirror or a distortion in only one way that is exactly equal to distortion which would be cancelled out by bendy light.
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 19, 2010, 06:34:31 AM
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.
?

EireEngineer

  • 1204
  • +0/-0
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #12 on: October 29, 2009, 06:58:16 AM »
Actually, they did bounce a radar signal off of the sun in 1960. A 100 watt signal returned back .00000000000000001 watt.  Of course it took a 40,000 watt signal to actually make it that far and return.
Logged
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #13 on: October 29, 2009, 07:03:58 AM »
Quote from: EireEngineer on October 29, 2009, 06:58:16 AM
Actually, they did bounce a radar signal off of the sun in 1960. A 100 watt signal returned back .00000000000000001 watt.  Of course it took a 40,000 watt signal to actually make it that far and return.

Then how do they know what power a 100 watt signal would have returned?
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

EireEngineer

  • 1204
  • +0/-0
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #14 on: October 29, 2009, 07:08:24 AM »
 Try to keep up. The 40,000 watt signal from earth was about 100 watts when it reached the surface, and returned at .00000000000000001 watt.  They pulsed the signal at a known frequency in order to differentiate it from the background noise.
Logged
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #15 on: October 29, 2009, 07:59:01 AM »
Quote from: EireEngineer on October 29, 2009, 07:08:24 AM
The 40,000 watt signal from earth was about 100 watts when it reached the surface

How do you know? Was its strength measured at the surface of the Sun?
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

EireEngineer

  • 1204
  • +0/-0
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #16 on: October 29, 2009, 10:00:33 AM »
Quote from: Parsifal on October 29, 2009, 07:59:01 AM
Quote from: EireEngineer on October 29, 2009, 07:08:24 AM
The 40,000 watt signal from earth was about 100 watts when it reached the surface

How do you know? Was its strength measured at the surface of the Sun?
Obviously not.  All EM radiation follows the inverse square law, but in this case you also have to factor in the scattering effect of the earths atmosphere and all of the interplanetary debris, which is tiny but could account for a watt or two.
Logged
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #17 on: October 29, 2009, 10:03:14 AM »
Quote from: EireEngineer on October 29, 2009, 10:00:33 AM
All EM radiation follows the inverse square law

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
« Last Edit: October 29, 2009, 10:05:00 AM by Parsifal »
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

EireEngineer

  • 1204
  • +0/-0
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #18 on: October 29, 2009, 10:12:39 AM »
Have you ever taken an em theory class in your life?  As a signal radiates it also expands in area as it travels outward, reducing the power.
Logged
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #19 on: October 29, 2009, 10:20:10 AM »
Quote from: EireEngineer on October 29, 2009, 10:12:39 AM
Have you ever taken an em theory class in your life?  As a signal radiates it also expands in area as it travels outward, reducing the power.

Obviously. I'm curious as to where you get the idea that all electromagnetic radiation does so according to an inverse square law, however.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3125
  • +0/-0
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #20 on: October 29, 2009, 10:59:39 AM »
Quote from: Parsifal on October 29, 2009, 10:20:10 AM
Quote from: EireEngineer on October 29, 2009, 10:12:39 AM
Have you ever taken an em theory class in your life?  As a signal radiates it also expands in area as it travels outward, reducing the power.

Obviously. I'm curious as to where you get the idea that all electromagnetic radiation does so according to an inverse square law, however.

Could it perhaps be because every single measurement of any EM radiation of any wavelength ever tested has shown agreement with the inverse square law? Just a guess.
Logged
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #21 on: October 29, 2009, 11:35:12 AM »
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on October 29, 2009, 10:59:39 AM
Could it perhaps be because every single measurement of any EM radiation of any wavelength ever tested has shown agreement with the inverse square law? Just a guess.

I beg to differ.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

EireEngineer

  • 1204
  • +0/-0
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #22 on: October 29, 2009, 11:42:18 AM »
Quote from: Parsifal on October 29, 2009, 11:35:12 AM
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on October 29, 2009, 10:59:39 AM
Could it perhaps be because every single measurement of any EM radiation of any wavelength ever tested has shown agreement with the inverse square law? Just a guess.

I beg to differ.
Then bring your proof next time.
Logged
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #23 on: October 29, 2009, 11:45:53 AM »
Quote from: EireEngineer on October 29, 2009, 11:42:18 AM
Then bring your proof next time.

All you need to do is ask.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

EireEngineer

  • 1204
  • +0/-0
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #24 on: October 29, 2009, 01:26:01 PM »
Quote from: Parsifal on October 29, 2009, 11:45:53 AM
Quote from: EireEngineer on October 29, 2009, 11:42:18 AM
Then bring your proof next time.

All you need to do is ask.
Seriously, if I have to explain basic E-M theory to you, then you are in no intellectual position to be trying to derive "bendy light"
Logged
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.
?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3125
  • +0/-0
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #25 on: October 29, 2009, 02:26:10 PM »
Quote from: Parsifal on October 29, 2009, 11:45:53 AM
Quote from: EireEngineer on October 29, 2009, 11:42:18 AM
Then bring your proof next time.

All you need to do is ask.

I'm asking - bring your proof now.
Logged
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.
*

Its a Sphere

  • 1490
  • +0/-0
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #26 on: October 29, 2009, 02:43:59 PM »
Quote from: EireEngineer on October 29, 2009, 01:26:01 PM
Quote from: Parsifal on October 29, 2009, 11:45:53 AM
Quote from: EireEngineer on October 29, 2009, 11:42:18 AM
Then bring your proof next time.

All you need to do is ask.
Seriously, if I have to explain basic E-M theory to you, then you are in no intellectual position to be trying to derive "bendy light"

No, I'm sure it will be "....so you're saying you've personally measured every single E-M radiation source to prove that every single one does.......blah"?
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 19, 2010, 06:34:31 AM
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #27 on: October 29, 2009, 08:38:39 PM »
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

EireEngineer

  • 1204
  • +0/-0
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #28 on: October 30, 2009, 11:17:30 AM »
Quote from: Parsifal on October 29, 2009, 08:38:39 PM
Quote from: Thermal Detonator on October 29, 2009, 02:26:10 PM
I'm asking - bring your proof now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser
your point being?  Have you tried using a laser to observe if it bends?
Logged
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Regarding the Photoelectric Suspension Theory..
« Reply #29 on: October 30, 2009, 11:20:26 AM »
Quote from: EireEngineer on October 30, 2009, 11:17:30 AM
your point being?  Have you tried using a laser to observe if it bends?

We weren't talking about bendy light in this thread. Please try to keep on topic.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
« previous next »