Photoelectric Suspension

I hardly see how this is a win for RET.

OH Where should I start...
You have just put the biggest whole ever it FET.
IF some thing are redshift x amount and other things arnt it means some thing are moving away faster.
The speed of light is consent.
No bendy light.
Spectrographs are correct there for one of an avg star when compared to the Sun proves it is a star.
We can detect plants around other stars by there wobble and brightness.
There for plants orbit stars just like the Sun.
Stars at the Zenith are not blueshifted there for no UA.
Stars in our galaxy are not redshifted very much at all again no UA.
Every thing is moving away from us not consent with us again no UA.
Should I go on?
Earth is round /forum

I don't personally believe they are that close.

Hmm. Well I believe red shift data should be able to tell you how close they are.

It should also be able to tell you interesting things about the movement of the earth relative to the stars.

Care to reach some evidence backed conclusions?

Quote from: John Davis on May 23, 2010, 02:08:46 AM

I don't personally believe they are that close.

Hmm. Well I believe red shift data should be able to tell you how close they are.

It should also be able to tell you interesting things about the movement of the earth relative to the stars.

Care to reach some evidence backed conclusions?

They could any tell you interesting thigns if you assume things you don't know. 

Quote from: John Davis on May 23, 2010, 12:58:07 PM

I hardly see how this is a win for RET.

OH Where should I start...

Of course there is no UA.  UA is silly.
Your other claims are equally ridiculous and show you are simply ignorant of many traditional and modern flat earth theories. 

Quote from: Space Tourist on May 23, 2010, 02:11:38 PM

Quote from: John Davis on May 23, 2010, 12:58:07 PM

I hardly see how this is a win for RET.

OH Where should I start...

Of course there is no UA.  UA is silly.
Your other claims are equally ridiculous and show you are simply ignorant of many traditional and modern flat earth theories. 

This is what is called, "moving the goal post".  All the FE'ers tell us RE'ers that we should read the Wiki.  Yet, when we thrash a concept in the Wiki, you claim that THAT part of the Wiki is silly, and call the RE'er ignorant of FET.  Not really fair is it?  Maybe you should rewrite the Wiki?  Maybe the FES should get together and try to agree on SOMETHING!

Quote from: John Davis on June 05, 2010, 01:24:03 PM

Quote from: Space Tourist on May 23, 2010, 02:11:38 PM

Quote from: John Davis on May 23, 2010, 12:58:07 PM

I hardly see how this is a win for RET.

OH Where should I start...

Of course there is no UA.  UA is silly.
Your other claims are equally ridiculous and show you are simply ignorant of many traditional and modern flat earth theories. 

This is what is called, "moving the goal post".  All the FE'ers tell us RE'ers that we should read the Wiki.  Yet, when we thrash a concept in the Wiki, you claim that THAT part of the Wiki is silly, and call the RE'er ignorant of FET.  Not really fair is it?  Maybe you should rewrite the Wiki?  Maybe the FES should get together and try to agree on SOMETHING!

I've never said to read the wiki.

I've never claimed belief in the UA or anything else you have stated.

Maybe you should read the literature rather than a wiki on an internet forum.

I love how John Davis is basically saying the Wiki is junk even though the wiki is mostly filled with literature Tom Bishop has selected.

Hey, maybe if you help us get rid of tom bishop or at least totally discredit him, we'd be more open to your views?

Quote from: Sliver on June 05, 2010, 01:56:01 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 05, 2010, 01:24:03 PM

Quote from: Space Tourist on May 23, 2010, 02:11:38 PM

Quote from: John Davis on May 23, 2010, 12:58:07 PM

I hardly see how this is a win for RET.

OH Where should I start...

Of course there is no UA.  UA is silly.
Your other claims are equally ridiculous and show you are simply ignorant of many traditional and modern flat earth theories. 

This is what is called, "moving the goal post".  All the FE'ers tell us RE'ers that we should read the Wiki.  Yet, when we thrash a concept in the Wiki, you claim that THAT part of the Wiki is silly, and call the RE'er ignorant of FET.  Not really fair is it?  Maybe you should rewrite the Wiki?  Maybe the FES should get together and try to agree on SOMETHING!

I've never said to read the wiki.

I've never claimed belief in the UA or anything else you have stated.

Maybe you should read the literature rather than a wiki on an internet forum.

Ah, so the Wiki for the forum, of which you are a moderator, is wrong?  Why are you not doing anything to correct this? 

See, in my post, the term "all" is meant to refer to the FES in general, not you specifically.  However, it is funny that the part about the Wiki is all you chose to rebut, not the part about "moving the goalpost".

They could any tell you interesting thigns if you assume things you don't know. 

Not sure how this obtuse reply helps your cause.

Care to reach some evidence backed conclusions?

I've never said to read the wiki.

Maybe you should read the literature rather than a wiki on an internet forum.

Or, maybe you should fill in the skeleton outline that you started in said wiki.  Or have you completely abandoned your model?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Model

in b4 electric field =/= magnetic field, so it isn't a magnet.
however thank you for posting a /b/ meme (seriously).

my biggest problem with the idea is that the earth doesn't have infinite supply of electrons. and wouldn't the pressure required to hold up the sun, make us fly up into the atmosphere as well? And as for the magnetic field, magnetic force is not based on the distribution of electric charges, rather the movement thereof. so the magnetic field of the earth would not be changed with the increase in charge. so unless the magnetic field increases proportionally too the electric field, to cancel it out, which would require a different mechanism because of the aforementioned reasons, then that theory is wrong

Quote from: John Davis on June 05, 2010, 02:37:55 PM

I've never said to read the wiki.

Maybe you should read the literature rather than a wiki on an internet forum.

Or, maybe you should fill in the skeleton outline that you started in said wiki.  Or have you completely abandoned your model?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Model

A good idea, one that I will do when I get the chance (when I have time outside of work and my book and studies.)

Cool. Until then "photoelectric suspension" is not a valid FE theory.

Cool. Until then "photoelectric suspension" is not a well-documented FE theory.

Fix'd

My model has nothing to do with photoelectric suspension.

My model has nothing to do with photoelectric suspension.

You mean you derailed this thread with irrelevant information?

I was discussing, with you at times, why pest is bunk and possible other explanations.

my biggest problem with the idea is that the earth doesn't have infinite supply of electrons. and wouldn't the pressure required to hold up the sun, make us fly up into the atmosphere as well? And as for the magnetic field, magnetic force is not based on the distribution of electric charges, rather the movement thereof. so the magnetic field of the earth would not be changed with the increase in charge. so unless the magnetic field increases proportionally too the electric field, to cancel it out, which would require a different mechanism because of the aforementioned reasons, then that theory is wrong

Just to add to this post: If the earth became increasingly positively charged due to electrons being lost due to sunlight, would we not experience repulsion with everything we try to touch?  Would everyone's hair not stand on end like when someone touches a van-de-graff generator?