Persieds Meteor shower

Thork took the words right out of my mouth with regard to lightning; I'm proud that my colleagues on this website are so capably fielding the intricacies of PEST (Photo Electric Suspension Theory).

The semantic debate about the "core" is an irrelevant sideshow.  It is a flat plate of iron under the Earth, quite simply.

The UA does not vary over the surface of the Earth, it pushes up uniformly against the Earth's underside.

But you have re-posted, with permission, the following:

What I am proposing is that this is how the sun and moon are kept above the earth. I believe that at some point in time the sun and moon were in fact massice disks of metal that were on top of the earths crust and underneath the earths crust is the molten metal core.  We all know that opposites attract and similars repel. In order for this to workI have to take into account a piece of Round earth science; behind all background radiation is that of the big bang.  This I propose is coming from the UA beneath us. This radiation is all of the wavelengths of the EMS but of course only the correct wavelengths have the right frequencies to take part in the photo-electric effect.  This radiation would ionise the metal in the core and that of the sun and moon above the crust with the same charge therefore repelling each other and forcing the sun and moon upwards and stopping them from falling due to the constant acceleration of the UA.

If this is the case and the Iron of the Earth is in fact being affected by the photoelectric suspension, then surely a small disk of iron placed on the surface of the Earth should either be pushed up by the repelling force of the core of the Earth since, after all, they would be of the same polarity as they would both be affected by the same source of ionizing energy.



And my comment about the core was not to bring into this thread a semantics debate.  Instead it was intended to create clarification for those less experienced who may not understand what you mean by "core".

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 15, 2011, 10:55:58 PM

Are you aware of the prevailing theories regarding what killed the dinosaurs off?   

Theories only. Have you any definite evidence or documented cases?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 15, 2011, 10:55:58 PM

Quote

I even can't find any, not even one case about humans or animals throughout their history.

Try harder.  I already posted a link that talks about several.

I can try as hard as I can but won't find anything. Your links talk about meteorites. James was talking about meteors which never reach the earth. So, you can only be hit by meteor if you watch them from the air. Very-very high up.

Wow, should we change your name to Parsifal?

LordDave's comments about little iron discs are erroneous; he demonstrates a misunderstanding of the photoelectric effect. Photons are required for objects to float up into the air. Why else do you think they call it "light"?

There are many non-lit Moons above the Earth; modern science suggests that these may interact with the Earth in a similar way to the visible Moon, which is why the distribution of lightning does not strictly track the movements of the visible Moon.

Could I hear more about this "modern science" you're speaking of? I've never heard of these moons before.

Then you have been studying the wrong science, the false pseudoscience of globularism. I suggest you spend less time reading the wild fantasies of peer-reviewed science journal contributors, and more time reading this website.

Quote from: Verrine on August 16, 2011, 12:10:07 AM

It's the alternative zetete spelling of the word. In one of my posts, I have mentioned the reasons why we, excellent zetetes, sometimes use the alternative zetete spellings.

There is no "alternative spellings" for meteor. There is meteor and there is meteorite. Two different terms for two different things. And only posts I could find about your reasons were some hazy excuses for your spelling errors.

You haven't heard about the alternative zetete spelling for meteorite because you're not a zetete. Also, I thought we've established that I didn't make any mistakes.


Here you have another example of an excellent zetete using the alternative zetete spelling of a word:

massice discs

I could list more if you want. However, I won't list many, since we don't want agents of the Conspiracy (NASA, KFC) to discover all the alternative zetete spellings we use.

I could list more if you want. However, I won't list many, since we don't want agents of the Conspiracy (NASA, KFC) to discover all the alternative zetete spellings we use.

That would definitely be a shame if it were to happen

I must say though, I have trouble understanding how meteors occur in the flat earth UA mythical scenario

Massice is not an alternative spelling of anything. Something is massice, in scientific terminology, if it suspended by photoelectric emissions. A massice disc is a disc which is thus suspended.

Quote from: zork on August 15, 2011, 11:50:05 PM

I can try as hard as I can but won't find anything. Your links talk about meteorites. James was talking about meteors which never reach the earth. So, you can only be hit by meteor if you watch them from the air. Very-very high up.

Wow, should we change your name to Parsifal?

Why? Do you deny that your links talk about meteorites? Or are the meteor and meteorite same thing? Or how do you differentiate between two different things when you use the same word for both of them?

You haven't heard about the alternative zetete spelling for meteorite because you're not a zetete. Also, I thought we've established that I didn't make any mistakes.

  I can understand when you make the new word, as this massice is but you can't take the existing term and say that this is alternative spelling. This absolutely isn't alternative spelling but simple ignorance when you use term for another thing to describe totally different thing.

I could list more if you want. However, I won't list many, since we don't want agents of the Conspiracy (NASA, KFC) to discover all the alternative zetete spellings we use.

No, you couldn't. Because there isn't any.

LordDave's comments about little iron discs are erroneous; he demonstrates a misunderstanding of the photoelectric effect. Photons are required for objects to float up into the air. Why else do you think they call it "light"?

Then please, enlighten me as to the source of the photons and how the iron in the core would react differently than the iron above the surface?

Quote from: James on August 16, 2011, 06:57:45 PM

LordDave's comments about little iron discs are erroneous; he demonstrates a misunderstanding of the photoelectric effect. Photons are required for objects to float up into the air. Why else do you think they call it "light"?

Then please, enlighten me as to the source of the photons and how the iron in the core would react differently than the iron above the surface?

Prove that it is iron all the way down and not just near the surface. There are many elements more dense than iron.

Quote from: Lorddave on August 17, 2011, 03:36:41 AM

Quote from: James on August 16, 2011, 06:57:45 PM

LordDave's comments about little iron discs are erroneous; he demonstrates a misunderstanding of the photoelectric effect. Photons are required for objects to float up into the air. Why else do you think they call it "light"?

Then please, enlighten me as to the source of the photons and how the iron in the core would react differently than the iron above the surface?

Prove that it is iron all the way down and not just near the surface. There are many elements more dense than iron.

I need not. Brother James said it was an iron core and thus I shall go with that.

Massice is not an alternative spelling of anything. Something is massice, in scientific terminology, if it suspended by photoelectric emissions. A massice disc is a disc which is thus suspended.

No, there is no word "massice" in scientific terminology. Its a word you made up. I cant find any reference to it outside this forum and I suspect its even a joke cover up for a misspelling of "massive".

Quote from: James on August 17, 2011, 12:37:37 AM

Massice is not an alternative spelling of anything. Something is massice, in scientific terminology, if it suspended by photoelectric emissions. A massice disc is a disc which is thus suspended.

No, there is no word "massice" in scientific terminology. Its a word you made up. I cant find any reference to it outside this forum and I suspect its even a joke cover up for a misspelling of "massive".

I guess Brother James doesn't want to reveal too much about our Alternative Spelling System (ASS).

Massice is not an alternative spelling of anything. Something is massice, in scientific terminology, if it suspended by photoelectric emissions. A massice disc is a disc which is thus suspended.

How about this:

You should cover your desc in reflective material if at all possible.

Quote from: James on August 17, 2011, 12:37:37 AM

Massice is not an alternative spelling of anything. Something is massice, in scientific terminology, if it suspended by photoelectric emissions. A massice disc is a disc which is thus suspended.

No, there is no word "massice" in scientific terminology. Its a word you made up. I cant find any reference to it outside this forum and I suspect its even a joke cover up for a misspelling of "massive".

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/368557/Battle-of-Massice

That's the only credible reference besides intentional misspellings of massive.

Quite possible it's a surname attached to a theory. 

Quite possible it's a surname attached to a theory.

Quite possible its a misspelled word given an excuse to be attached to a made up phenomenon. Ask him if he vanquished the Nibble-Pibblies while youre at it.

The UA does not vary over the surface of the Earth, it pushes up uniformly against the Earth's underside.

You will explain how the UA produces different accelerative forces in different places on the earth, or else admit that UA is disproved. Then, after you have mopped up the blood that will inevitably have run out of your ears if you accomplish this, you can answer my question to you about what the dinosaurs mistake was. I believe that is considered on topic, as the forum seems to have a policy of allowing discussion of outrageous dinosaur theories in any thread.

Quote from: Verrine on August 16, 2011, 10:13:36 PM

I could list more if you want. However, I won't list many, since we don't want agents of the Conspiracy (NASA, KFC) to discover all the alternative zetete spellings we use.

No, you couldn't. Because there isn't any.

You myst be kidding.

I am not prepared to enter into a completely unnecessary semantic sideshow- I do not have to justify my use of correct scientific terms such as Massice which are merely brought up by my opposition to distract from the inherent logical force of my arguments. I am not willing to dumb down my posts purely because people refuse to accept the correct terms for things.

Quote from: James on August 16, 2011, 03:18:47 PM

The UA does not vary over the surface of the Earth, it pushes up uniformly against the Earth's underside.

You will explain how the UA produces different accelerative forces in different places on the earth, or else admit that UA is disproved. Then, after you have mopped up the blood that will inevitably have run out of your ears if you accomplish this, you can answer my question to you about what the dinosaurs mistake was. I believe that is considered on topic, as the forum seems to have a policy of allowing discussion of outrageous dinosaur theories in any thread.

The UA does not produce different accelerative forces in different places on the Earth, I suggest you try to measure gravitation at different points on the Earth and you will see that it is a uniform upward acceleration of approximately 9.81m/s^2.

Quote from: Skeleton on August 17, 2011, 04:15:19 PM

Quote from: James on August 16, 2011, 03:18:47 PM

The UA does not vary over the surface of the Earth, it pushes up uniformly against the Earth's underside.

You will explain how the UA produces different accelerative forces in different places on the earth, or else admit that UA is disproved. Then, after you have mopped up the blood that will inevitably have run out of your ears if you accomplish this, you can answer my question to you about what the dinosaurs mistake was. I believe that is considered on topic, as the forum seems to have a policy of allowing discussion of outrageous dinosaur theories in any thread.

The UA does not produce different accelerative forces in different places on the Earth, I suggest you try to measure gravitation at different points on the Earth and you will see that it is a uniform upward acceleration of approximately 9.81m/s^2.

They have measured gravitation, and found that it is not uniform.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Recovery_and_Climate_Experiment

inb4 Conspiracy

Who are They? Are They the same They who went to space? I'm rather reluctant to take what They say entirely serious, given Their previous track record.

Who are They? Are They the same They who went to space? I'm rather reluctant to take what They say entirely serious, given Their previous track record.

NASA isn't the only one to prove variation in gravitation. There even is a formula to calculate the variance in your area: http://geophysics.ou.edu/solid_earth/notes/potential/igf.htm

Fantastic, but I can provide you formulae for absolutely anything - a formula has no utility when it comes to the kind of cold, hard proof which we at the Flat Earth Society demand from scientific endeavour. I could give you a formula for the average length of a unicorn's horn in your local area, but that wouldn't mean that there were actually any unicorns near your house.

Fantastic, but I can provide you formulae for absolutely anything - a formula has no utility when it comes to the kind of cold, hard proof which we at the Flat Earth Society demand from scientific endeavour. I could give you a formula for the average length of a unicorn's horn in your local area, but that wouldn't mean that there were actually any unicorns near your house.

Fair enough. Take a look at some of these papers.

The echelons of so called academic geology are littered with the absurd fantasies of pretenders to scientific authority. Am I supposed to be convinced of your ludicrous suggestion by the say-so of people who honestly believe that the thing which they purport to be studying is a giant whirling space-ball? The available "scientific" literature simply does not meet basic standards of scientific rigour.

The echelons of so called academic geology are littered with the absurd fantasies of pretenders to scientific authority. Am I supposed to be convinced of your ludicrous suggestion by the say-so of people who honestly believe that the thing which they purport to be studying is a giant whirling space-ball? The available "scientific" literature simply does not meet basic standards of scientific rigour.

That, my friends, is a textbook example of a cop out.

A comet leaves dust behind it, so there is a constant dust stream in the same location that the earth moves through:
1) Since this dust stream is from a comet path which is constant, the earth will pass through it once a year (365 days).

So then in your model, the Sun itself does not move at all? 

Or do you believe some magical force carries this tenuous stream of dust completely undisturbed along with the Sun and its retinue of planets and their moons, as the whole system barrels through the interstellar medium at an alleged speed of 486,000 miles per hour, somehow keeping it "constant" year after year?

Ludicrous.

The available "scientific" literature simply does not meet basic standards of scientific rigour.

Yeah, because saying that in order to prove that the earth is flat, it is only required to open a window, and see outside, is one of the most advanced scientific and rigorous experiment ever.

Quote from: momentia on August 12, 2011, 11:06:43 PM

A comet leaves dust behind it, so there is a constant dust stream in the same location that the earth moves through:
1) Since this dust stream is from a comet path which is constant, the earth will pass through it once a year (365 days).

So then in your model, the Sun itself does not move at all? 

Or do you believe some magical force carries this tenuous stream of dust completely undisturbed along with the Sun and its retinue of planets and their moons, as the whole system barrels through the interstellar medium at an alleged speed of 486,000 miles per hour, somehow keeping it "constant" year after year?

Ludicrous.

First off, motion is relative. The interstellar medium is very sparse and would not affect the the orbit of the comet. Anyways, the particles flying off the sun and the sun's magnetic field will overpower any interstellar "wind." The solar system's major motion is around the center of the Milky Way galaxy, which is so relatively slow that it would not affect the motion of comets and planets. Thus, for purposes of determining motion of objects in the solar system, the sun can be considered as the center, with negligible motion (except for slight wobbles mostly caused by the larger planets like Jupiter).

Given this, the comet's orbit stays pretty much the same, and it leaves behind dust and ice in this orbit, which the earth crosses once a year, causing the meteor shower.

Your turn to explain periodicity (make it better than certain stars go nova again and again every 365 days or integer multiples thereof, but never with any other periodicity, and that these stars always reach their zenith near morning. That's just desperate talk.)