The Solar Paradoxes

  • 13 Replies
  • 15240 Views
?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1295
The Solar Paradoxes
« on: June 13, 2010, 10:43:41 PM »
A CONCISE ANALYSIS OF THE SOLAR PARADOXES

Sandokhan's Article on the Solar Paradoxes
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=553

Having surveyed this thread in the link above with the objective of getting the basic idea of it, I have come to the following conclusions which I will state in order to make it easier for others to understand.  

The (five) solar paradoxes as such are not ancient wisdom or knowledge concerning the sun or anything of the kind.  These paradoxes are five areas in which modern so-called scientific theories completely fail to explain the sun and are thus exposed as false.  They are smoking guns which expose the fact that the entire system of heliocentric theory and any astronomy or astrophysics based upon relativity or theoretical physics is utter garbage.

The five solar paradoxes, then, are glaring indications that modern theories about the sun are false and have not a clue as to the truth.  The same applies to what Sandokhan has elsewhere written about Paradoxes of the Moon which are actually paradoxes of modern theories of the moon.

----------------------------------------------------------

The material on the Book of Enoch is excellent, and reguardless of how much false astronomy he exposes, Sandokhan always returns to the cosmography of Enoch, and I completely agree with him on this.  His research into how this system plays out in the real world is perhaps some of his greatest material.  I intend in the future to focus more on such material specifically as opposed to the solar paradoxes since it is frankly more interesting and also because Sandokhan has posted so much material to wade through and it is enough for me that I already know that modern astronomy is false.  

Sandokhan believes in two suns - a black sun and a visible sun.  In this, I do not follow him, and although I do not doubt this occurs in occult cosmographical theories such as those of the jains or hindus, any alleged black sun seems to me to have been unknown to Enoch and does not exist (in my opinon).  This issue of the black or invisible sun is one of the few areas where Sandokhan and I seem to disagree on science.

Anyway, when all is said, the importance of the Book of Enoch remains.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2010, 10:53:49 PM by 17 November »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4410
Re: The Solar Paradoxes
« Reply #1 on: June 16, 2010, 03:47:06 AM »
Here is the black sun, carefully photographed in Antarctica:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg957289#msg957289

In those videos (ISS solar transits), also, we can see that the "law of gravitation", F = m1m2G/r^2 is completely false; objects/planets/stars do NOT attract each other, as the space shuttle/ISS orbit just about 1 km in front of the Sun.

The fact that an object falling freely near the Earth's surface increases its velocity with 9.81 m/s (32.2 ft/s or 22 mph) for each second of its descent is AN EFFECT of an unknown cause (in current scientific theories; here, we know very well what gravity actually is and how it works).

The original quotes from I. Newton:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38959.msg976795#msg976795 (pressure type of gravity which does cause the acceleration imparted to objects)

How I Control Gravity de Dr. Townsend Brown:

http://www.rexresearch.com/gravitor/gravitor.htm

In 1910, professor Francis Nipher showed that the weight of an object can be modified by applying electricity:

http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm

Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

The biography of F. Nipher:

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/scripts/data/database.cgi?ArticleID=0000301&file=Data&report=SingleArticle


And at the present time the celestial mechanics of the solar system CANNOT BE described scientifically and mathematically, since to predict future of a chaotic system for arbitrary long times, one would need to know the initial conditions with infinite accuracy, and this is by no means possible. Furthermore, we do not know exactly the complete Hamiltonian of the Solar System: apart from Newtonian gravitational forces, there are many effects of various origin, in the official theory, (e.g. relativistic corrections, variation of the mass of the sun, consequences of asphericity of the planets and the spin-orbit resonances, thermal radiation, and many others), which cannot be exactly taken into account.


The most interesting of the solar paradoxes:

Impossibility of a round Sun shape:

The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun. Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

Near the polar regions of the sun, streamers of the corona are observed, which prolong still more the axial length of the sun.

If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary).



Somebody was asking for some details re: the global Piri Reis Map...
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/Graphics-Other/PSCI/pirireis2.gif (an attempt to match the longitudes/latitudes of the official map onto the Piri Reis map)

The research done by S. Rowbotham re: the longitudes:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za42.htm




« Last Edit: June 16, 2010, 03:50:52 AM by levee »

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1295
Re: The Solar Paradoxes
« Reply #2 on: June 18, 2010, 01:47:42 AM »
Quote from: levee
Here is the black sun, carefully photographed in Antarctica:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg957289#msg957289

Be it noted that the photographer who took the picture, Fred Bruenjes, says himself that the object which passed in front of the sun was the moon:
"All too soon the eclipse ended and the sun peeked out from behind the moon."

http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/index.html

This solar eclipse, like other solar eclipses, was not a surprise.  It was known in advance because of the records of previous solar eclipses where the moon is always observed to pass in front of the sun during a solar eclipse.  Back in the early 1980's in New Orleans, I personally observed a partial solar eclipse in daylight in a cloudless sky.  I watched the event for several hours - beginning when the sun and moon were some distance from each other in the sky  The moon did become dark when it came within the immediate vicinity of the sun (which is not surprising since the sun is so much brighter), and it remained dark while it was passing in front of the sun, but it was the moon - not another object.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4410
Re: The Solar Paradoxes
« Reply #3 on: June 18, 2010, 02:22:42 AM »
Dionysios, of course F. Bruenjes would say that it was the moon; but the dimensions of the Black Sun seen in those photographs tell us very quickly that the Moon could not possibly cause the solar eclipse; the videos also show the real diameter of the visible Sun. How could the Moon look like the heavenly body in the photographs? It is located some hundreds of km away from the F. Bruenjes...no 384000 km between the earth and the moon.

But, if you want to believe that the Moon does cause the solar eclipse, go ahead. I believe that I have offerred here enough proofs (the impossibility of the formation of a spherical moon to start with, the fact that there is no attractive gravity, that the earth does not cause the lunar eclipse) for those who really want to find the truth so they can use the unalienable right to think when presented with round earth propaganda...







This is what the Black Sun actually looks like; it is the source of energy for the visible Sun (tachyons) without which we would have no visible light, and no infrared radiation.

These photographs are confirmed by the transit videos:

SUN - EARTH OFFICIAL DISTANCE = 149 MILLION KM
SUN DIAMETER = 1,4 MILLION KM
MOON - EARTH DISTANCE = 384000 KM

WE SEE THE ATLANTIS/ISS RIGHT NEXT TO THE SUN, WITH NO 149 MILLION KM BETWEEN THEM, THE VIDEOS ARE VERY CLEAR:




NO 149 MILLION DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SUN AND ISS.



SAME THING.

SLOW MOTION, ONLY A FEW KM BETWEEN THE ISS AND THE SUN (IF THAT MUCH):



markjo, I hope you do not need glasses, no 149 million km to the Sun.

TAKE A LOOK AT THIS ONE, ATLANTIS IN FRONT OF THE SUN:




AND NOW THE MOON - ISS TRANSITS, SAME DISTANCE, SAME DIAMETER AS IN THE SUN - ISS VIDEOS:






The Sun/ISS/Mercury transit videos show clearly the real dimensions of the Sun: not 1.4 million km in diameter (or for that matter, 50 km/32 mi), but just 1000/PHI ~= 618 meters:








The Moon/ISS transits show the same diameter as that of the Sun:




« Last Edit: June 18, 2010, 02:42:16 AM by levee »

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1295
Re: The Solar Paradoxes
« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2010, 02:59:21 PM »
Quote from: levee
How could the Moon look like the heavenly body in the photographs?
Simple.  When it enters the immediate vicinity of the sun from the viewers's perspective it appears darker because its light is so inferior to that of the sun's light.  (And this does not exclude the possibility that the moon actually ceases to emit light during this occurence.)

Be that as it may, If I shine a medium size flashlight in the darkness of night with no other lights around, such a flashlight will appear quite bright, but if I shine it during the day, then its output of light appears almost nil.  And if I place it immediately adjacent to a high powered flood light, the medium size flashlight would also appear dark even if it was turned on.

Secondly, the explanation of the exact shape in these photographs is self evident.  The black sphere in front of the sun does indeed appear as a sphere, but not an absolutely perfect sphere.  The reason for this is that these photographs were not taken when the moon was exactly directly in front of the sun.  The black object does have a perfect curve along the perimeter of its upper half, but the bottom half is slightly irregular because sunlight from behind is visibly obscuring the exactness of the perfect curve of the black sphere of the moon.  The reason for this is that this photograph was not taken at exactly the time of maximum eclipse and thus the moon is not precisely directly in front of the sun but only almost.  This escape of bright sunlight from behind roughly half of the moon's edge is the explanation of the apparent slight lack of perfect sphericity of the dark moon in some of the photos.

Thirdly, these photographs further confirm what I said elsewhere about the moon based on Saint Basil's 'Hexameron' - that the moon itself is not a light, but a vessel which carries light.  And this fact that the moon itself is a vessel which carries light can be visually confirmed since the complete outline of a sphere is often discernible even when the moon is not full.

On another note, all this is aside from the fact that you are of course correct about the lunar eclipses.

Quote from: levee
But, if you want to believe that the Moon does cause the solar eclipse, go ahead.
Fair enough.  One difference of opinion is hardly reason enough to join forces with the anti-levee fanatics.  I actually owe you a long overdue thanks since before you came along, I was the main focus of their attacks.  You basically took the heat off.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2010, 05:08:52 PM by 17 November »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4410
Re: The Solar Paradoxes
« Reply #5 on: June 19, 2010, 02:58:57 AM »
Please explain to us here the spherical shape of the Moon (your opinion, or better said, your pseudo-explanations). Those photographs do show a disk-shaped planet/star, no spherical shape to be seen anywhere.

In none of those pictures do we see anything resembling the Moon, or a spherically shaped planet/star.

You have seen already that the Sun could not have attained a spherical shape in the first place; why would you believe in a spherical Moon, given the amount of evidence I have put at your disposal re: the big bang/space-time hoaxes?

The videos do confirm what I have just told you; the Sun has a disk shape, and is much closer to us than previously thought (either the official propaganda, 149000000 km, or the official FE faq which does include much false information) and it has exactly the diameter seen in those photographs, about 600 meters or so.

Your personal opinions cannot take the place of the actual observations we can immediately make, based on those photographs/videos.

Again, please explain to us the spherical shape of the Moon.

The proofs I provide for the new radical chronology and the shape of the earth are very easy to understand; what we are dealing with here is an unbelievable subconscious resistance which does prevent the round earth supporters (and as of late, even some of the flat earth members, such as Ben Franklin, who has to resort to pathetic excuses and absurd accusations, instead of being able to debate with me directly) from discovering the truth.

For each and every statement I make, I come here with ample proofs and arguments, so that even the most stubborn of the RE/FE proponents can discover the fallacies which can be found in their scientific opinions.

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1295
Re: The Solar Paradoxes
« Reply #6 on: June 19, 2010, 10:51:18 AM »
Quote from: levee
Please explain to us here the spherical shape of the Moon.

Quote from: levee
You have seen already that the Sun could not have attained a spherical shape in the first place; why would you believe in a spherical Moon, given the amount of evidence I have put at your disposal re: the big bang/space-time hoaxes?

I also believe that the Sun is spherical because it appears that way.  I can clearly see that it is spherical just as I can see that the earth is flat.  This applies to the moon as well.

The most interesting of the solar paradoxes:  Impossibility of a round Sun shape:
I looked over this, and it failed to convince me that the Sun is anything but spherical.
Just like heliocentrists, you seem to resort to a rigid explanation of minute esoteric details to explain why the obvious is allegedly not as it appears.

Quote from: levee
Those photographs do show a disk-shaped planet/star, no spherical shape to be seen anywhere.
You seem to differentiate between a (flat?) disc and a sphere.  As far as I am concerned, your declaration that these photographs exhibit "no spherical shape to be seen anywhere" is quite an assumption on your part - "a pseudo-explanation" - to use your own terminology.

Quote from: levee
In none of those pictures do we see anything resembling the Moon, or a spherically shaped planet/star.
What can I say?  This is false.

EDIT:  The black sphere in front of the sun in the photographs very much resembles the new moon.

Quote from: levee
Your personal opinions cannot take the place of the actual observations we can immediately make, based on those photographs/videos.
That is exactly what I think of your statements about these photographs.


Quote from: levee
... what we are dealing with here is an unbelievable subconscious resistance which does prevent the round earth supporters (and as of late, even some of the flat earth members, such as Ben Franklin ... from discovering the truth.

In my humble opinion, it is better to analyze and judge our opponents' actual statements than our opponents themselves (even when debating round earthers or anyone else) because when we fail to respect this, we arrogate ourselves as judges of others which may render us more vulnerable to a judgment from God.

That being said, I will continue to search through what levee has written on these subjects because there is a great amount of good and useful material to be found therein.

---------------------------------------------

Of levee's 5 solar paradoxes, I do not think that they are essential to understanding astronomy because such vast reading and complex of  details are unnecessary to an understanding that modern astronopmy is fundamentally false, but they can be of particular usefulness to anyone looking to disprove modern heliocentric astronomy on its own turf using its own language.

The one exception I see so far is this paradox concerning the shape of the sun which appears to me to be quite a novelty.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2010, 05:01:45 PM by 17 November »

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1295
Re: The Solar Paradoxes
« Reply #7 on: June 19, 2010, 11:43:12 AM »
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=553#p24705

Based upon a perusal of the link above, I have a question for levee:

Do you believe that the sun is cold?

-------------------------------------------------

Even if levee and I disagree on this topic as well, I must thank him for this link because it further confirms the close association of modern heliocentrism with occultism since it establishes that the famous heliocentric astronomer William Herschel apparently believed that the sun is inhabited.  Aside from exposing Herschel as a charlatan, this strongly suggests his connection with occult societies such as freemasonry.  As a matter of fact, I have seen other indications which suggest a connection of Herschel with the occult (and all of modern heliocentric astronomy).

Namely, Professor Charles Lane Poor's provided evidence that Herschel's mathematical calculations were in fact completely unrelated to the so-called "discovery" of the planet Uranus, and he received the already known exact information from others who intended to use the alleged discovery as a proof of Newtonian heliocentric astronomy and of the alleged obsolescence of geocentrism.

This information was gleaned from this important book by Einstein's most consistent science critic which has now been reprinted.

Gravitation Versus Relativity
By Charles Lane Poor
http://www.amazon.com/Gravitation-Versus-Relativity-Non-Technical-Gravitational/dp/1144891698/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276972825&sr=1-5

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4410
Re: The Solar Paradoxes
« Reply #8 on: June 20, 2010, 04:00:27 AM »
Dionysios, how can I make it easier for you to understand; we are talking here about PROOFS. I have just offerred you the best proofs available today, which should convince you that your point of view is wrong.

I have asked you TO EXPLAIN TO US, HOW, IN WHAT WAY, it was possible for the sun/moon to attain a spherical shape. You have failed to do so. I will give you one more chance.

Can you make the difference between a disk-shaped planet/star and a spherical planet/star? I hope so, because those videos and photographs from Antarctica show a disk and not a sphere, no matter what you say.

You do not have at the present moment the scientific background or the much needed proofs to go head to head with me on this subject, because I can immediately show you that you are wrong.

Again, please explain to us how in your view the sun/moon became spherical from a flat cloud of matter.

Here is the best scientific proof that the Sun could not have attained a spherical shape to start with, please follow the arguments closely:

Impossibility of a round Sun shape:

The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun. Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

Near the polar regions of the sun, streamers of the corona are observed, which prolong still more the axial length of the sun.

If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary).


There you have it, lord byron; the complete and absolute demonstration that the Sun could not possibly have attained a spherical shape; can you understand the scientific proofs you have just read? They show that also the Moon and/or any other planet could not be of a spherical shape. CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE CENTRIFUGAL FORCE WOULD HAVE MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE SUN TO ATTAIN A SPHERICAL SHAPE, GIVEN THE LOW ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE? CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THE PRESSURE OF LIGHT ARGUMENT? CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT A FLAT DISK OF MATTER (CLOUD) WOULD NEED A TANGENTIAL COMPRESSION FORCE FROM OUTSIDE TO REACH A SPHERICAL SHAPE, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY? AND THAT A FLAT DISK COULD NOT BALL ITSELF INTO A GLOBE?

Do you want me to bring the videos here again? To watch with your own eyes the disk-shaped Sun with the ISS in front of it?

Please resort to science and eliminate from your discussion any personal views you might have on the subject; the scientific proofs I have just provided to you do show very clearly that the spherical shape of the sun you take to be correct, is just a tremendous hoax.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2010, 04:08:07 AM by levee »

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8710
  • Semper vigilans
Re: The Solar Paradoxes
« Reply #9 on: June 21, 2010, 11:01:03 AM »
Can I see more on the pressure of light argument that you mentioned?
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4410
Re: The Solar Paradoxes
« Reply #10 on: June 22, 2010, 04:27:44 AM »
Here is more info on the radiation pressure of the sun:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-rpress.asp
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-grp.asp
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/s7.htm

It was way back in 1845 when it was observed for the first time that radiation pressure over the sun spots is less than that of the surrounding areas.



Sunspots are areas where the magnetic field is about 2,500 times stronger than Earth's own magnetic field, much higher than anywhere else on the Sun. Because of the strong magnetic field, the magnetic pressure increases while the surrounding atmospheric pressure decreases. This in turn lowers the temperature relative to its surroundings because the concentrated magnetic field inhibits the flow of hot, new gas from the Sun's interior to the surface. Sunspots tend to occur in pairs that have magnetic fields pointing in opposite directions. Since they are cooler, less light is produced and they appear as black spots. The strong magnetic field locks the gas of the photosphere in places and inhibits the hotter gas below to rise at the sunspots. As a result, the sunspots are cooler.

Now, we are told that (the official explanation) the energy produced by the fusion will create two kinds of outward pressure to act against the gravitational attraction. Because of these two balancing forces (the outward pressure and the inward gravitational attraction), the star is stable for a very long time. The first kind of pressure refers to the gas pressure due to the materials inside the star. The higher the temperature and the more the material can lead to the increase of pressure. The second one is the pressure due to photons called radiation pressure. It increases with temperature.


As we have seen, though, there is no such as an attractive kind of gravity; in addition to the fact that the radiation (light) pressure argument in the relation to the sunspots shows very clearly how erroneous the official view (astrophysics of the sun) really is.

And we have not even talked here about the faint young sun paradox, or the sun neutrino paradox (which remains unresolved to this present day). There is no way that a spherical star (sun) could have been produced/created either by the big bang or the space-time continuum hypotheses. The only way we can imagine such a thing, would be a constant tangential compression force applied to some cloud of matter, carefully molding this cloud (and this, at the tremendous speed of the solar system through the galaxy itself) into a sphere and applying thereafter a pressure type of gravity to hold it into place.

For those who accept the creation hypothesis, they must realize that a model involving a HOLLOW sun (with openings at both poles), and HOLLOW stars/planets, would be needed to explain their orbits within the aether rotational force context.


My favorite sun paradox is, of course, the solid sun surface paradox.


http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/index.html

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/model.htm

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/sunquakes.htm

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/moss.htm



solid core + plasma cloud, based only on official photographs given by Nasa:
www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/The_Suns_Origin.pdf

about the fact that O. Manuel's article includes the wrong hypotheses, (imploding supernova), on:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060124solar3.htm

http://www.the-electric-universe.info/Scripts/5th_state_of_matter.html (more info)


Astronomical myths of Mercury and the Sun:

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=e511t4z2


« Last Edit: June 22, 2010, 05:04:40 AM by levee »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4410
Re: The Solar Paradoxes
« Reply #11 on: June 22, 2010, 05:09:23 AM »
Here are more things which CANNOT be explained by the official science.

Ball lighting in a plane

Another account of strange goings-on aboard an airliner was issued by the TASS news agency. It described how a ball of fire, four inches across, appeared on the fuselage in front of the cockpit of an Ilyushin-18 aircraft as it flew close to a thunderstorm over the Black Sea on Jan. 15, 1984. According to the report:

It disappeared with a deafening noise, but re-emerged several seconds later in the passengers' lounge, after piercing in an uncanny way through the air-tight metal wall. The fireball slowly flew over the heads of the stunned passengers. In the tail section of the airliner it divided into two flowing crescents which then joined together again and left the plane almost noiselessly.

The radar and some other instruments aboard the Ilyushin were damaged and two holes were later found in the fuselage. The "deafening crash" and damage to the aircraft could have been caused by ordinary lightning but this certainly wouldn't account for the appearance of the glowing sphere inside.

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/ball_lightning.html

The existence of "ball lightening" has now been accepted but as yet eluded explanation, except that attempts have been made without the usual mathematical substantiation. The peculiar anti-gravitational effect, the inductive effects and the fantastic energy of ball lightning are well known properties.

In order to better understand its principle it is necessary to grasp first what are the ether vortical object and ball lightning. Basically, they are the same. The only difference is that the ball lightning is a visible ether object. Visibility of ball lightning is provided by fluorescence of charged air particles.

Ball lightning floats near the ground, sometimes bounces off the ground or other objects, and does not obey the whims of wind or the laws of gravity.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060531-ball-lightning_2.html


Tesla Ball Lightning Research:

http://home.dmv.com/~tbastian/files/balllite.txt

http://lightworkers.org/node/15377

http://www.stevenconnor.com/volts/

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tesla/esp_tesla_20.htm


Sprites, blue jets and elves CANNOT be explained by current atmospheric physics.


http://www.sky-fire.tv/index.cgi/spritegallery.html

(sprites on video)


Some of these occurrences take place BETWEEN the two Heavenly Domes...

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4410
Re: The Solar Paradoxes
« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2010, 05:12:56 AM »
S. Rowbotham in Earth is not a Globe:

If any allowance is to be made for refraction--which, no doubt, exists where the sun's rays have to pass through a medium, the atmosphere, which gradually increases in density as it approaches the earth's surface--it will considerably diminish the above-named distance of the sun; so that it is perfectly safe to affirm that the under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth.

It is unfortunate that S. Rowbotham did not include in his book (1881) the classical experiment of G.B. Airy (1871) which did prove once and for all that there are multiple layers of aether, of various densities, between the Sun/Stars and Earth.

Here are the details concerning the experiment performed by G.B. Airy:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39116.msg986695#msg986695


Therefore, statements such as: On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator and appears 45 degrees above the horizon at 45 degrees north and south latitude. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles.  and  If a navigator neglects to apply the sun's radius to his observation at sea, he is 16 nautical miles (nearly) out in calculating the position his ship is in. A minute of arc on the sextant represents a nautical mile, and if the radius of the sun is 16 miles, the diameter is of course 32 miles. And as measured by the sextant, the sun's diameter is 32 minutes of arc, that is 32 nautical miles in diameter. cannot be true given the effect of the many layers of aether (of various densities) upon the light emitted by the Sun. Also, measuring the angle of the sun from a latitude of 30 degrees or 60 degrees will give different results.

And there are further issues to be dealt with, if we use simple triangulation to obtain possible figures for the Earth-Sun distance:

The sun crosses the celestial equator and moves southward in the northern hemisphere during the September equinox. The location on the earth where the sun is directly overhead at solar noon is known as the subsolar point. The subsolar point occurs on the equator during the September equinox and March equinox. At that time, the earth's axis of rotation is perpendicular to the line connecting the centers of the earth and the sun. This is the time when many people believe that the earth experiences 12 hours of day and night. However, this is not exactly the case.

Dispelling the exactly 12 hours of daylight myth
It is important to note that day and night during the September equinox is not exactly equal length. During the time of the September and March equinoxes many regions around the equator have a daylight length of about 12 hours and six-and-a-half minutes. Moreover, the day is slightly longer in places that are further away from the equator and the sun takes longer to rise and set in these locations.

According to the US Naval Observatory the dates of equal day and night occur about February 25 and October 15 at a latitude of five degrees in the northern hemisphere. They occur around March 17 and September 26 at a latitude of 40 degrees. On the dates of the equinoxes, the day is about seven minutes longer than the night at latitudes up to about 25 degrees, increasing to 10 minutes or more at a latitude of 50 degrees.


The ONLY possible way to discern/distinguish/infer the real diameter of the Sun, not to mention the correct Earth-Sun distance, is by direct comparison with an object/space shuttle/planet which would transit in front of the Sun.

Here are the actual videos which do show the REAL measure of the diameter of the Sun and the CORRECT Earth-Sun distance:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39728.msg994892#msg994892

Also included are the photographs taken in Antarctica by F. Bruenjes which do confirm the figures which can be easily deduced from the transit videos.



 
« Last Edit: June 27, 2010, 05:30:35 AM by levee »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4410
Re: The Solar Paradoxes
« Reply #13 on: July 04, 2010, 03:03:05 AM »
17 November wrote about the Earth-Sun distance, saying that a Sun positioned at some 12 km in the atmosphere could not be seen from some thousands of km away.

Please read the facts about the brightness of the Tunguska explosion which took place at an altitude of 7 kilometers, SEEN ALL THE WAY FROM LONDON/STOCKHOLM/ANTWERP, some 6000 km distance:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1142

I always provide proofs for my statements, here is the video proof that indeed the Sun can be seen from some thousands of km away, and moreover, the path is completely incompatible with the heliocentric planetary system theory:



THE VIDEO DOCUMENTARY PROVIDED EARLIER AND THE PHOTOGRAPHS FROM ANTARCTICA DO SHOW A 600 METER DIAMETER SUN JUST IN FRONT OF THE ISS/ATLANTIS/MERCURY, please watch them again:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39728.msg994892#msg994892


17 November, you should also research very carefully the radical new chronology subject; actually you should be giving alms and prayers for being fortunate enough to read these things. Here is the complete proof that Christ was cruficified at Troy/Constantinopole around 1715 AD, and how the whole story was changed in the period 1715-1720 to suit the purposes of the conspirators who also invented the round earth hoax:


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg945934#msg945934 (the artifacts found at Pompeii/Herculaneum prove IMMEDIATELY that the eruption of Vesuvius which destroyed these cities, took place AT LEAST AFTER 1700 AD, AND NOT IN THE YEAR 79 AD, while the Jump of the Second Derivative of the Moon Elongation prove that the astronomical records of the period 700 BC - 1200 AD were made up much later in time; I urge all of you to read this carefully)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg945952#msg945952 (more proofs for those who accept the official chronology)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg858185#msg858185 (the classics HISTORY: SCIENCE OR FICTION VOL. 1 AND 2, and the BOOK OF CIVILIZATION)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg858706#msg858706 (Christoph Pfister discovered that there was NO HUMAN SETTLEMENT IN SWITZERLAND before 1700 AD)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg861961#msg861961 (more proofs)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg865008#msg865008 (more precise proofs)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg866855#msg866855 (the PAULINE EPISTLES by EDWIN JOHNSON, the extraordinary work which proves that the New Testament was forged at least after 1533 AD + C. Pfister's own site translated in English)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg939935#msg939935 (jump of the second derivative/moon elongation by R. Newton)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg940930#msg940930 (mysteries of the egyptian zodiacs/Christ crucified at Constantinopole/Troy)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg942177#msg942177

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg945204#msg945204 (stone levitation)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg945952#msg945952


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg969919#msg969919 (more extraordinary proofs that the eruption of the volcano Vesuvius that destroyed Pompeii/Herculaneum took place in the 17th century AD)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg986690#msg986690 (who wrote the bible)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg998158#msg998158 (C. Pfister archive, one of the very best proofs for the fact that all history prior to 1770 AD)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1003416#msg1003416 (more about the radical new chronology)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg960675#msg960675 (Garden of Eden, north of Egypt and west of the Nile)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg945934#msg945934 (Pompeii destroyed at least after 1700 AD, more on the moon elongation paradox)