The Sun

Quote from: Sliver on April 20, 2010, 06:57:43 PM

Where is it in accepted physics that such a small light source can illuminate such a large area?  Please, show me.

If an unobstructed path exists from a light source to a point on a surface, a light ray can travel from the source to that part of the surface. If such paths exist to every point on the surface, the entire surface may be illuminated by the light source. Note that this is independent of the sizes of both the light source and the surface.

Quote from: Sliver on April 20, 2010, 06:57:43 PM

As for what makes me think your a FE'er, statements like the one in red above.

I don't follow your reasoning.

While this is correct, it applies only to individual light waves.  To effectively illuminate a surface, you need millions of light wave to hit it.  This is where the distance from your source to your surface comes into play.  The closer the two, the brighter the surface will be lit, but less area will be lit.  The further the light source, the surface will not be as well lit, but the area illuminated will be larger.  You can try this, if your not too lazy, in your own living room with a light bulb.  Also, now that I think about it, I need to thank you for helping me completely disprove the FAQ's model for the sun and Earth relationship.  See, with your statement, the sun would illuminate the entire flat Earth, but it doesn't.  That must mean something is obstructing the light source.  Something like, I don't know, the planet?

Quote from: Lorddave on April 20, 2010, 07:10:16 PM

The Earth has no gravitational field of it's own

This is where your understanding falls short.

Wouldn't that mean the UA isn't the source of the acceleration?

So, what shape overall is the FE? Is it a large cube or is it rather thin?

Unknown. Different models have different hypotheses on this.

While this is correct, it applies only to individual light waves.  To effectively illuminate a surface, you need millions of light wave to hit it.  This is where the distance from your source to your surface comes into play.  The closer the two, the brighter the surface will be lit, but less area will be lit.  The further the light source, the surface will not be as well lit, but the area illuminated will be larger.  You can try this, if your not too lazy, in your own living room with a light bulb.  Also, now that I think about it, I need to thank you for helping me completely disprove the FAQ's model for the sun and Earth relationship.  See, with your statement, the sun would illuminate the entire flat Earth, but it doesn't.  That must mean something is obstructing the light source.  Something like, I don't know, the planet?

There is no such thing as an "individual light wave". A wave is a continuous construct; there is no natural unit of a wave. As for the latter half of your post, bendy light explains why some of the Earth's surface is not lit - the sunlight bends up and away from areas which are far away from the Sun.

Wouldn't that mean the UA isn't the source of the acceleration?

Different models say different things. You are correct that some FEers believe the Earth does not exhibit gravitation; however, it is generally accepted that some form of gravitation does indeed exist. Some models, including John Davis's infinite plane model, reject the UA entirely.

If an unobstructed path exists from a light source to a point on a surface, a light ray can travel from the source to that part of the surface. If such paths exist to every point on the surface, the entire surface may be illuminated by the light source. Note that this is independent of the sizes of both the light source and the surface.

Actually, no.
Light ray hitting a surface != it will illuminate that surface.

Sure, you will be able to see the source of the ray from the surface it's hitting, but it wont illuminate the surface you are on.

bendy light explains why some of the Earth's surface is not lit - the sunlight bends up and away from areas which are far away from the Sun.

Making light bendy up and away in a asymptote fashion (as your diagrams suggest) to the ground would make the light travel further out and make them visible from further away.

Are you contradicting your own theory? Or have you since changed how Bendylightlol works?

There is no such thing as an "individual light wave". A wave is a continuous construct; there is no natural unit of a wave. As for the latter half of your post, bendy light explains why some of the Earth's surface is not lit - the sunlight bends up and away from areas which are far away from the Sun.

Show me where "Bendy Light" is accepted physics.  And while you're at it, acknowledge the rest of my post.

Quote from: Parsifal on April 20, 2010, 07:00:48 PM

If an unobstructed path exists from a light source to a point on a surface, a light ray can travel from the source to that part of the surface. If such paths exist to every point on the surface, the entire surface may be illuminated by the light source. Note that this is independent of the sizes of both the light source and the surface.

Actually, no.
Light ray hitting a surface != it will illuminate that surface.

Sure, you will be able to see the source of the ray from the surface it's hitting, but it wont illuminate the surface you are on.

Bingo.  This an easy one to test.  Have a buddy walk across a field, say 100m away, and shine a flashlight on you.  You will be able to see the flashlight, but you will not bee illuminated.

Quote from: flyingmonkey on April 20, 2010, 07:31:23 PM

Quote from: Parsifal on April 20, 2010, 07:00:48 PM

If an unobstructed path exists from a light source to a point on a surface, a light ray can travel from the source to that part of the surface. If such paths exist to every point on the surface, the entire surface may be illuminated by the light source. Note that this is independent of the sizes of both the light source and the surface.

Actually, no.
Light ray hitting a surface != it will illuminate that surface.

Sure, you will be able to see the source of the ray from the surface it's hitting, but it wont illuminate the surface you are on.

Bingo.  This an easy one to test.  Have a buddy walk across a field, say 100m away, and shine a flashlight on you.  You will be able to see the flashlight, but you will not bee illuminated.

Unless, it's a flashlight with the power of a million candles.

Precisely.

Question:

How does the FE Sun, act as a spotlight if it is a sphere?

According to Parsifal, it should illuminate the entire surface lolol

inb4 bendylightlolol

Atomic bombs explode once, and then the fusion ends. Applying these results to the Sun, it should have blown up as soon as it was formed. Since the Sun obviously still exists, we conclude that the atomic bomb is not evidence for the plausibility of the RE Sun.

Please bother to read the whole of my post, where I state that the reaction ends when all the fuel is used up. How much fuel is in a hydrogen bomb compared to the mass of the Sun? Additionally, most of the explosive energy of a bomb is due to secondary fission which is not what happens in the Sun. You clearly don't understand the mechanisms which cause explosions and the conditions which must be met for them to happen. If you ignite a big pile of gunpowder, it burns. It doesn't explode. If you fire a shotgun shell, the gunpowder makes an explosion. Learn.

Actually, no.
Light ray hitting a surface != it will illuminate that surface.

Sure, you will be able to see the source of the ray from the surface it's hitting, but it wont illuminate the surface you are on.

If a light ray strikes a surface, it will illuminate it. That is what "illumination" means.

Making light bendy up and away in a asymptote fashion (as your diagrams suggest) to the ground would make the light travel further out and make them visible from further away.

Are you contradicting your own theory? Or have you since changed how Bendylightlol works?

Bendy light has not changed, although I'm guessing your understanding of it is flawed because your conclusion is wrong. It's hard to tell exactly what you mean when you use phrases like "a asymptote fashion to the ground", though.

Show me where "Bendy Light" is accepted physics.  And while you're at it, acknowledge the rest of my post.

I never claimed bendy light to be accepted physics, only that it provides an explanation for a point you raised. Also, I responded to your entire post, since most of it hinged on your misconception of what a light wave is.

How does the FE Sun, act as a spotlight if it is a sphere?

The spherical Sun model with bendy light is an alternative to the spotlight Sun model. In the model I am discussing, the Sun does not act as a spotlight.

Please bother to read the whole of my post, where I state that the reaction ends when all the fuel is used up. How much fuel is in a hydrogen bomb compared to the mass of the Sun?

Unless you can prove that providing a fusion bomb with a continuous supply of hydrogen would cause the reaction to be sustained, this is still not evidence of a sustainable fusion reaction.

Additionally, most of the explosive energy of a bomb is due to secondary fission which is not what happens in the Sun.

Then, by your own admission, it is not a valid representation of the mechanism which powers the RE Sun. As such, it is not evidence to support the model.

You clearly don't understand the mechanisms which cause explosions and the conditions which must be met for them to happen. If you ignite a big pile of gunpowder, it burns. It doesn't explode. If you fire a shotgun shell, the gunpowder makes an explosion. Learn.

Chemical reactions are very different to nuclear ones. For instance, the rate at which chemical reactions occur is often dependent on the exposed surface area to volume ratio of the reactants, which explains why larger quantities of substances typically react slower. There is no analogue to surface area in the context of nuclear reactions.

Quote from: flyingmonkey on April 20, 2010, 07:31:23 PM

Actually, no.
Light ray hitting a surface != it will illuminate that surface.

Sure, you will be able to see the source of the ray from the surface it's hitting, but it wont illuminate the surface you are on.

If a light ray strikes a surface, it will illuminate it. That is what "illumination" means.

You ignored the little flashlight test I suggested.  See, when you turn on a light source, light waves head out in every direction.  The stronger the source, the more waves it produces.  Now, the further from the source, the farther apart these waves get.  That is why a light bulb only illuminates so much space.  You can see this every night when you switch on a light.  Now, you can still see the light source from a greater distance that it will illuminate, but that does not mean you are being illuminated.  Try it.

See, my experiment does not attempt to falsify the accepted laws of physics, but your bendy light theory, does.

The stronger the source, the more waves it produces.

No.

Quote from: Sliver on April 21, 2010, 06:38:46 AM

The stronger the source, the more waves it produces.

No.

Excuse me, photons.
I notice you have no problem with the rest of the post.

I notice you have no problem with the rest of the post.

Actually, the entire premise makes no sense at all. Here is the definition of "illuminate":

to illuminate (third-person singular simple present illuminates, present participle illuminating, simple past and past participle illuminated)

   1. (transitive) to shine light on something
   2. (transitive) to decorate something with lights
   3. (transitive) to clarify or make something understandable
   4. (transitive) to decorate the page of a manuscript book with ornamental designs
   5. (intransitive) to glow
   6. (intransitive) to be exposed to light

Since apparently the state of being exposed to light is insufficient to meet your definition of "illuminate", would you care to define your usage of the word? Then perhaps we can move forward.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 21, 2010, 02:38:06 AM

Please bother to read the whole of my post, where I state that the reaction ends when all the fuel is used up. How much fuel is in a hydrogen bomb compared to the mass of the Sun?

Unless you can prove that providing a fusion bomb with a continuous supply of hydrogen would cause the reaction to be sustained, this is still not evidence of a sustainable fusion reaction.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 21, 2010, 02:38:06 AM

Additionally, most of the explosive energy of a bomb is due to secondary fission which is not what happens in the Sun.

Then, by your own admission, it is not a valid representation of the mechanism which powers the RE Sun. As such, it is not evidence to support the model.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 21, 2010, 02:38:06 AM

You clearly don't understand the mechanisms which cause explosions and the conditions which must be met for them to happen. If you ignite a big pile of gunpowder, it burns. It doesn't explode. If you fire a shotgun shell, the gunpowder makes an explosion. Learn.

Chemical reactions are very different to nuclear ones. For instance, the rate at which chemical reactions occur is often dependent on the exposed surface area to volume ratio of the reactants, which explains why larger quantities of substances typically react slower. There is no analogue to surface area in the context of nuclear reactions.

1. It's provable by this thing called PHYSICS which has a predictive power, in which EXPERIMENTS can tell us what would happen if the conditions were changed. If you want to go to nuclear physicists and tell them that nuclear fusion would suddenly stop working if they gave the reaction a bit more fuel, then go right ahead. Make sure you video this encounter - I'd love to see it when they laugh and point at you, or if you manage to persuade them, when they burn 60 years of research papers. One or the other will happen, but I think you should act as an experiment to find out which.

2. The mention of fission was to point out that a fusion reaction is not necessarily a massive big bang. Learn to understand the relevance of different bits of the post and what they relate to. It is, like your beliefs, irrelevant to the model of the Sun.

3. Again, you don't understand the metaphor. It was not to compare chemical and nuclear reactions; it was to illustrate my phrase "the mechanisms which cause explosions and the conditions which must be met for them to happen." In other words, the conditions in the Sun are not suitable for a massive one-off bang, even though when encapsulated with a uranium tamper, a fusion reaction of a tiny quantity of hydrogen WILL do this. Similarly gunpowder will burn when not confined, but cause an explosion when it is.

Quote from: 2fst4u on April 20, 2010, 07:18:19 PM

So, what shape overall is the FE? Is it a large cube or is it rather thin?

Unknown. Different models have different hypotheses on this.

Quote from: Sliver on April 20, 2010, 07:20:38 PM

While this is correct, it applies only to individual light waves.  To effectively illuminate a surface, you need millions of light wave to hit it.  This is where the distance from your source to your surface comes into play.  The closer the two, the brighter the surface will be lit, but less area will be lit.  The further the light source, the surface will not be as well lit, but the area illuminated will be larger.  You can try this, if your not too lazy, in your own living room with a light bulb.  Also, now that I think about it, I need to thank you for helping me completely disprove the FAQ's model for the sun and Earth relationship.  See, with your statement, the sun would illuminate the entire flat Earth, but it doesn't.  That must mean something is obstructing the light source.  Something like, I don't know, the planet?

There is no such thing as an "individual light wave". A wave is a continuous construct; there is no natural unit of a wave. As for the latter half of your post, bendy light explains why some of the Earth's surface is not lit - the sunlight bends up and away from areas which are far away from the Sun.

Quote from: Lorddave on April 20, 2010, 07:22:35 PM

Wouldn't that mean the UA isn't the source of the acceleration?

Different models say different things. You are correct that some FEers believe the Earth does not exhibit gravitation; however, it is generally accepted that some form of gravitation does indeed exist. Some models, including John Davis's infinite plane model, reject the UA entirely.

Well then can you point me to where it says how much mass the Earth has so I can do the calculations?   Or should I use the mass of the RE because it's gravitational force comes out to the 9.8m/s^2?

Quote from: Sliver on April 21, 2010, 07:12:58 AM

I notice you have no problem with the rest of the post.

Actually, the entire premise makes no sense at all. Here is the definition of "illuminate":

Quote from: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/illuminate

to illuminate (third-person singular simple present illuminates, present participle illuminating, simple past and past participle illuminated)

   1. (transitive) to shine light on something
   2. (transitive) to decorate something with lights
   3. (transitive) to clarify or make something understandable
   4. (transitive) to decorate the page of a manuscript book with ornamental designs
   5. (intransitive) to glow
   6. (intransitive) to be exposed to light

Since apparently the state of being exposed to light is insufficient to meet your definition of "illuminate", would you care to define your usage of the word? Then perhaps we can move forward.

To shine light on something.  But I'll elaborate.  We'll add the word effectively.  That would mean that the light source evenly and equally lights the surface you are shining it on.  Let's use your computer monitor for example.  Turn off all the lights in the room your in.  Now, you'll notice that your room is somewhat lit, but not effectively, by the monitor.  The area right in front of the screen is fairly well lit, but the wall across the room, not so much.  Now, by definition, the room is "illuminated", but not effectively.  That help you out?

It's provable by this thing called PHYSICS which has a predictive power, in which EXPERIMENTS can tell us what would happen if the conditions were changed. If you want to go to nuclear physicists and tell them that nuclear fusion would suddenly stop working if they gave the reaction a bit more fuel, then go right ahead. Make sure you video this encounter - I'd love to see it when they laugh and point at you, or if you manage to persuade them, when they burn 60 years of research papers. One or the other will happen, but I think you should act as an experiment to find out which.

Physics makes predictions, yes, but that doesn't mean those predictions are valid. They need to be tested before we can draw any conclusions about them.

The mention of fission was to point out that a fusion reaction is not necessarily a massive big bang. Learn to understand the relevance of different bits of the post and what they relate to. It is, like your beliefs, irrelevant to the model of the Sun.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. You're dragging the conversation off on a tangent, while still not providing any evidence that a sustainable fusion reaction is possible.

Again, you don't understand the metaphor. It was not to compare chemical and nuclear reactions; it was to illustrate my phrase "the mechanisms which cause explosions and the conditions which must be met for them to happen." In other words, the conditions in the Sun are not suitable for a massive one-off bang, even though when encapsulated with a uranium tamper, a fusion reaction of a tiny quantity of hydrogen WILL do this. Similarly gunpowder will burn when not confined, but cause an explosion when it is.

So you admit that the example you used did not resemble the RE Sun in any way, and therefore was not evidence of its plausibility. Gotcha.

Well then can you point me to where it says how much mass the Earth has so I can do the calculations?   Or should I use the mass of the RE because it's gravitational force comes out to the 9.8m/s^2?

Different models make different statements about the mass of the Earth. In Davis's infinite plane model, the mass is of course infinite. Also, the mass of the RE only has a gravitational field of 9.8 m s^-2 if the mass is arranged into a sphere; this result cannot be applied to a FE model.

To shine light on something.  But I'll elaborate.  We'll add the word effectively.  That would mean that the light source evenly and equally lights the surface you are shining it on.  Let's use your computer monitor for example.  Turn off all the lights in the room your in.  Now, you'll notice that your room is somewhat lit, but not effectively, by the monitor.  The area right in front of the screen is fairly well lit, but the wall across the room, not so much.  Now, by definition, the room is "illuminated", but not effectively.  That help you out?

If your definition of "effective illumination" is that the surface is illuminated "evenly and equally", then the Earth is not effectively illuminated according to RET either; nor is the actual illumination, given available data, effective.

If your definition of "effective illumination" is that the surface is illuminated "evenly and equally", then the Earth is not effectively illuminated according to RET either; nor is the actual illumination, given available data, effective.

Sure it is, well the side facing the sun anyway.  That other side of the Earth isn't getting too much light right now.  Now, before you start in on, "What about the edges!?!?!"  I'll just point to your post, that light will continue to travel until something gets in it's way.  As the round Earth rotates, it blocks the suns light from hitting part of the Earth.  We call this transitional time "dusk".  Once the light is completely blocked, we call it night.

Physics makes predictions, yes, but that doesn't mean those predictions are valid. They need to be tested before we can draw any conclusions about them.

I've made a prediction about the FE sun model, and yet, you refuse to test it before you draw a conclusion. 

Sure it is, well the side facing the sun anyway.

No it isn't. The power of the sunlight reaching the Earth's surface per unit area decreases smoothly from the part of the Earth where the Sun is directly overhead to the parts of the Earth which are experiencing twilight.

I've made a prediction about the FE sun model, and yet, you refuse to test it before you draw a conclusion.

There are two fallacies here:

• Your prediction was based on blind speculation, not science.
• I haven't drawn any conclusions about your prediction.

Quote from: Sliver on April 21, 2010, 05:45:24 PM

Sure it is, well the side facing the sun anyway.

No it isn't. The power of the sunlight reaching the Earth's surface per unit area decreases smoothly from the part of the Earth where the Sun is directly overhead to the parts of the Earth which are experiencing twilight.

Quote from: Sliver on April 21, 2010, 05:45:24 PM

I've made a prediction about the FE sun model, and yet, you refuse to test it before you draw a conclusion.

There are two fallacies here:

• Your prediction was based on blind speculation, not science.
• I haven't drawn any conclusions about your prediction.

Read the rest of my post, especially that part about dusk.  My prediction was based on simple math, and a little common sense.  If you haven't drawn any conclusions about my predictions, than why are you saying they're wrong?  Also, why are you refusing to try it?  You're not acknowledging the simple tests I've provided for you to test the FE sun model.  Why is that?

Read the rest of my post, especially that part about dusk.

I read the whole thing, and it doesn't change what I said.

My prediction was based on simple math, and a little common sense.

Then why does it make no sense, and have no maths to back it up?

If you haven't drawn any conclusions about my predictions, than why are you saying they're wrong?

I'm not; I'm saying they contradict accepted science.

Also, why are you refusing to try it?  You're not acknowledging the simple tests I've provided for you to test the FE sun model.  Why is that?

Because it's your responsibility to test it, as the party challenging the accepted theory.

Because it's your responsibility to test it, as the party challenging the accepted theory.

The FE model of the sun and Earth relationship is what I'm questioning, and that is a far cry from accepted theory.

The math is in the post.  All I did was provide a few formulas for creating a scale model with which a FE'er could attempt to create an experiment and prove that their model works.  Even though it won't.  This does not contradict accepted science an any way, it contradicts the FE sun/Earth model.

The FE model of the sun and Earth relationship is what I'm questioning, and that is a far cry from accepted theory.

You're also questioning the field of optics.

The math is in the post.  All I did was provide a few formulas for creating a scale model with which a FE'er could attempt to create an experiment and prove that their model works.  Even though it won't.  This does not contradict accepted science an any way, it contradicts the FE sun/Earth model.

Your mathematics simply provides a scale model; it does nothing to support your argument. I have already stated numerous times why your claims contradict accepted physics; the fact that they also contradict the FE model does not change this. In this particular area, FET is entirely compatible with accepted physics, and it is your claims which are not.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 21, 2010, 10:51:18 AM

It's provable by this thing called PHYSICS which has a predictive power, in which EXPERIMENTS can tell us what would happen if the conditions were changed. If you want to go to nuclear physicists and tell them that nuclear fusion would suddenly stop working if they gave the reaction a bit more fuel, then go right ahead. Make sure you video this encounter - I'd love to see it when they laugh and point at you, or if you manage to persuade them, when they burn 60 years of research papers. One or the other will happen, but I think you should act as an experiment to find out which.

Physics makes predictions, yes, but that doesn't mean those predictions are valid. They need to be tested before we can draw any conclusions about them.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 21, 2010, 10:51:18 AM

The mention of fission was to point out that a fusion reaction is not necessarily a massive big bang. Learn to understand the relevance of different bits of the post and what they relate to. It is, like your beliefs, irrelevant to the model of the Sun.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. You're dragging the conversation off on a tangent, while still not providing any evidence that a sustainable fusion reaction is possible.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 21, 2010, 10:51:18 AM

Again, you don't understand the metaphor. It was not to compare chemical and nuclear reactions; it was to illustrate my phrase "the mechanisms which cause explosions and the conditions which must be met for them to happen." In other words, the conditions in the Sun are not suitable for a massive one-off bang, even though when encapsulated with a uranium tamper, a fusion reaction of a tiny quantity of hydrogen WILL do this. Similarly gunpowder will burn when not confined, but cause an explosion when it is.

So you admit that the example you used did not resemble the RE Sun in any way, and therefore was not evidence of its plausibility. Gotcha.

1. They have been tested. They are valid. Do some fucking research.
2. You're a bit thick for someone who claims to be the most intelligent person on the forum.
3. Irrelevant. It was not meant to be evidence of the Sun, merely an example that in order for ANY physical phenomenon to happen, conditions must be met. The use of something else which explodes was meant to make the example obvious, but instead it's confused you. I could have used examples of how milk does not just turn into Edam cheese or how acorns don't just turn into oak trees without the right conditions. But since you lack the capacity to think laterally and creatively and are therefore unable to understand the intent of metaphors (probably a symptom of your autism) then that would have confused you even more.

1. They have been tested. They are valid. Do some fucking research.

Source?

2. You're a bit thick for someone who claims to be the most intelligent person on the forum.

Please refrain from making personal attacks in the debate fora.

3. Irrelevant. It was not meant to be evidence of the Sun, merely an example that in order for ANY physical phenomenon to happen, conditions must be met. The use of something else which explodes was meant to make the example obvious, but instead it's confused you. I could have used examples of how milk does not just turn into Edam cheese or how acorns don't just turn into oak trees without the right conditions. But since you lack the capacity to think laterally and creatively and are therefore unable to understand the intent of metaphors (probably a symptom of your autism) then that would have confused you even more.

And how does this relate to my earlier statement, that the process of nuclear fusion as a sustainable source of energy has never been experimentally validated?

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 22, 2010, 09:53:18 AM

1. They have been tested. They are valid. Do some fucking research.

Source?

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 22, 2010, 09:53:18 AM

2. You're a bit thick for someone who claims to be the most intelligent person on the forum.

Please refrain from making personal attacks in the debate fora.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 22, 2010, 09:53:18 AM

3. Irrelevant. It was not meant to be evidence of the Sun, merely an example that in order for ANY physical phenomenon to happen, conditions must be met. The use of something else which explodes was meant to make the example obvious, but instead it's confused you. I could have used examples of how milk does not just turn into Edam cheese or how acorns don't just turn into oak trees without the right conditions. But since you lack the capacity to think laterally and creatively and are therefore unable to understand the intent of metaphors (probably a symptom of your autism) then that would have confused you even more.

And how does this relate to my earlier statement, that the process of nuclear fusion as a sustainable source of energy has never been experimentally validated?

The first statement is not a personal attack, but rather a statement of fact.

In regards to the second, neither has your little bendy light theory.

In regards to the second, neither has your little bendy light theory.

I never claimed it had been.

Quote from: Sliver on April 22, 2010, 07:07:24 PM

In regards to the second, neither has your little bendy light theory.

I never claimed it had been.

Ah, you admit irrelevant low content posting? Do you want to report yourself to a moderator or should one of us do it?

Quote from: Sliver on April 22, 2010, 07:07:24 PM

In regards to the second, neither has your little bendy light theory.

I never claimed it had been.

Then why do you use it to describe phenomena if it cannot be validated?  You're just guessing at that point.