Also requesting an explanation of the formation of the earth according to FET

  • 72 Replies
  • 15019 Views
*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
What ever you want to claim is fine with me Roundy. Just know that "for all we know" is implying the possibility that something could be true.

Yes.  Your point?

That you apparently need the Rif site more then any other here.


Why?  I never said that he wasn't allowing for the possibility that the Earth has always been, and your query was regarding how he can know that the Earth has always been... which (again) isn't something he ever stated. 

Tell me what I'm misunderstanding, please.  I was gracious enough to do it for you.
That is what I was saying the whole time. That he believes in the possibility that the Earth has just always existed. Jesus are my writing skills that bad... maybe I should take a class.

Oh, come on, that is not what you were saying.  I'm sorry if I was being a bit of a douche but you're just moving the goalposts now.

At any rate, yes, he probably believes in the possibility that the Earth always existed, but focusing on this still misses his point entirely.  The question posed was "How did the Earth form?"  His answer was that we can't know, and that it might have even always been there, ie, it might never have formed.  He only pointed that out to highlight that we just don't have any way of knowing what the Earth's origin is, or even if it ever had an origin, because we simply don't have the data.

I think you were reading too much into his statement that the Earth might have always existed.  He was not in any way professing a belief that this is the case, just that it's a possibility we can't rule out.  It's like saying "For all we know God exists."  Such a statement obviously does not imply a belief that God exists, it's only pointing out that it's a possibility.

Of course for all I know Kendrick may very well believe that it's likely that the Earth always existed.  But that certainly wasn't what he was trying to get across.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

burt

  • 849


It's hardly either my or Kendrick's problem that some of the REers on this site seem to have a problem with understanding the English language.


Ok, just some of them then. It's still a categorical error.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Also, isn't the general consensus among FET that "sky gears" are controlled by angels?

It is not. At least no more so than people still believing that Ra carries the sun across the sky in a barge.

I'd like to see Tom Bishop disprove this.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

burt

  • 849
What ever you want to claim is fine with me Roundy. Just know that "for all we know" is implying the possibility that something could be true.

Yes.  Your point?

That you apparently need the Rif site more then any other here.


Why?  I never said that he wasn't allowing for the possibility that the Earth has always been, and your query was regarding how he can know that the Earth has always been... which (again) isn't something he ever stated. 

Tell me what I'm misunderstanding, please.  I was gracious enough to do it for you.
That is what I was saying the whole time. That he believes in the possibility that the Earth has just always existed. Jesus are my writing skills that bad... maybe I should take a class.

Oh, come on, that is not what you were saying.  I'm sorry if I was being a bit of a douche but you're just moving the goalposts now.

Agreed.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.


It's hardly either my or Kendrick's problem that some of the REers on this site seem to have a problem with understanding the English language.


Ok, just some of them then. It's still a categorical error.

No, it was an observation.  No part of that statement is logically flawed given the evidence.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.


It's hardly either my or Kendrick's problem that some of the REers on this site seem to have a problem with understanding the English language.


Ok, just some of them then. It's still a categorical error.

No, it was an observation.  No part of that statement is logically flawed given the evidence.

It does, however, carry the tacit suggestion that no FE'ers ever have this problem. Which is incorrect.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

burt

  • 849


It's hardly either my or Kendrick's problem that some of the REers on this site seem to have a problem with understanding the English language.


Ok, just some of them then. It's still a categorical error.

No, it was an observation.  No part of that statement is logically flawed given the evidence.

An observation with a categorical error.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
This is the crucial observation H. Hoerbiger made:

The water condensed out into ice, forming giant ice blocks. A ring of this ice formed, as well as a small number of solar systems. This ring is known to us all as the Milky Way.

Now, he thought he observed ice blocks, which is a close estimate to the truth; in order to understand precisely what is going on you will need the cosmology of the Desana tribe, the Hexagonal Crystal Universe.

This is the crucial observation H. Hoerbiger made:

The water condensed out into ice, forming giant ice blocks. A ring of this ice formed, as well as a small number of solar systems. This ring is known to us all as the Milky Way.

Now, he thought he observed ice blocks, which is a close estimate to the truth; in order to understand precisely what is going on you will need the cosmology of the Desana tribe, the Hexagonal Crystal Universe.

Of course powerful telescopes completely invalidate this theory.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
This is the crucial observation H. Hoerbiger made:

The water condensed out into ice, forming giant ice blocks. A ring of this ice formed, as well as a small number of solar systems. This ring is known to us all as the Milky Way.

Now, he thought he observed ice blocks, which is a close estimate to the truth; in order to understand precisely what is going on you will need the cosmology of the Desana tribe, the Hexagonal Crystal Universe.

Of course powerful telescopes completely invalidate this theory.

Since when have observations of reality stopped Levee?  ;)
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/index.html




ANTARCTICA, BLACK SUN PHOTOGRAPHS - THE MOON DOES NOT CAUSE THE SOLAR ECLIPSE




SAME SIZE OF THE SUN/BLACK SUN AS IN THE ISS/ATLANTIS VIDEOS (see the previous message): SOME 600 METERS IN DIAMETER




?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Aww, I was going to make an amusing remark about how nice it was of Levee not to shove his famous Photoshopped Black Sun picture in our faces for once. Wish I had now.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Since when have observations of reality stopped Knowledge?

Here are facts.

Fred Bruenjes is one of the most renowned photographers in the world today. He was part of the Astronomical Tours expedition to the Schirmacher Hills area, on the Princess Astrid Coast in Dronning (Queen) Maud Land, Antarctica.

Be my guest and read the precise details of the entire expedition: http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/index.html

These photographs show exactly that the Moon could not possibly be the cause of the solar eclipse; furthermore, we can get immediately an estimate for the diameter of the Sun...







Here is the original image/photograph of the solar eclipse:




HERE ARE THE WORDS OF FRED BRUENJES HIMSELF:

To the doubters: this is a real image, I was really there and that's what it really looked like. Interestingly, people who have never seen a total solar eclipse think it's fake, while people who HAVE seen a total eclipse (particularly those with me in Antarctica) think I got the image exactly right!

The image was the Astronomy Picture of the Day on December 8th, 2003, and was CNN.com's Space Scene of the week starting December 17th, 2003. My website got half a million hits during December 2003.













So, here is the Black Sun in full splendor:




The Black Sun has the same diameter as that of the Sun itself.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2012, 01:34:51 AM by levee »

A black sun which only can be detected when in front of the Sun?
What kind of science is that?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Since when have observations of reality stopped Knowledge?

Here are facts.

Fred Bruenjes is one of the most renowned photographers in the world today. He was part of the Astronomical Tours expedition to the Schirmacher Hills area, on the Princess Astrid Coast in Dronning (Queen) Maud Land, Antarctica.

Be my guest and read the precise details of the entire expedition: http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/index.html

These photographs show exactly that the Moon could not possibly be the cause of the solar eclipse; furthermore, we can get immediately an estimate for the diameter of the Sun...







Here is the original image/photograph of the solar eclipse:




HERE ARE THE WORDS OF FRED BRUENJES HIMSELF:

To the doubters: this is a real image, I was really there and that's what it really looked like. Interestingly, people who have never seen a total solar eclipse think it's fake, while people who HAVE seen a total eclipse (particularly those with me in Antarctica) think I got the image exactly right!

The image was the Astronomy Picture of the Day on December 8th, 2003, and was CNN.com's Space Scene of the week starting December 17th, 2003. My website got half a million hits during December 2003.













So, here is the Black Sun in full splendor:




The Black Sun has the same diameter as that of the Sun itself.

Seriously, are you in the same dimension as the rest of us?
Firstly, the link you supply does nothing to contribute to your argument that it's "not the moon" that causes the eclipse, in fact it's very clear that it is. Secondly, I'm not claiming the image is fake: I'm claiming that the biggest one you show, with the sun covered by extreme blackness, is Photoshopped, by which I mean enhanced to look blacker, not made up from nothing.
THEN I found this on your link:
"The framed image below is a highly processed composite of four images that's intended to be a more artistic representation of what the eclipse felt like. I have increased the color saturation slightly to better show the green thru red corona colors, otherwise the image is truthful."
So yes, I was correct, it HAS been tarted.
And yes, I have seen a total solar eclipse myself. I never expressed the opinion that it's not photos of a real eclipse.
As to your assertions that you can somehow work out the size of the sun from this - how? And where do you think the moon is while this is going on, if it's not in front of the sun?
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
The essential features of the photographs were NOT changed: the size of the Black Sun, and of course, the distance to this heavenly body, which does cause the solar eclipse.

We can determine immediately the size of the Sun's diameter, firstly, from the videos I posted earlier here, and then from the Antarctica photographs taken by F. Bruenjes.

These photographs invalidate immediately the fairy tale invented by LRS and Nasa: no 4,800 km diameter for the Moon, no 384,000 km distance from Earth to the Moon.

In order to understand why this planet/heavenly body cannot be detected you must understand the nature of gravity.

Please read the following work carefully, as it explains the physics behind subquarks (the Black Sun emits subquarks), the real nature of the atom: ether vortices.

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf


Again, here is the original image:





Now, the words of F. Bruenjes: I have increased the color saturation slightly to better show the green thru red corona colors, otherwise the image is truthful."


No modification of the size of the Black Sun, no modification of the distance.

Here is the same photograph as above, magnified: it immediately shatters everything we have been taught about the real cause of the solar eclipse:



Game over.

As I said before:

A black sun which only can be detected when in front of the Sun?
What kind of science is that?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

MrT

  • 211
Game over.

From your link:

"What is a total solar eclipse? Well, through an amazing coincidence in geometry, every few years the Moon blocks out the Sun creating a solar eclipse. The Sun is 400 times the size of the Moon, and 400 times as distant, so they appear to be the same size when viewed from Earth. When the orbit of the Moon takes it between the Sun and the Earth, the shadow of the Moon is cast upon the Earth. If the Moon is close enough to the Earth, someone located near the middle of that shadow will see the Moon exactly block out the Sun in a spectacular show. This is a "Total Solar Eclipse." "
The above is not meant to be an attack or inflammatory, it's just what I think.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
I don't understand

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
The essential features of the photographs were NOT changed: the size of the Black Sun, and of course, the distance to this heavenly body, which does cause the solar eclipse.
Irrelevant, as no evidence is presented of the existence of the black sun. You fail to answer my question of where the Moon is while this is going on.
Quote
We can determine immediately the size of the Sun's diameter, firstly, from the videos I posted earlier here, and then from the Antarctica photographs taken by F. Bruenjes.
No you can't, as you don't know its distance. Therefore you cannot determine its true size.
Quote
These photographs invalidate immediately the fairy tale invented by LRS and Nasa: no 4,800 km diameter for the Moon, no 384,000 km distance from Earth to the Moon.
They don't invalidate anything, for the reasons already given.

Quote
In order to understand why this planet/heavenly body cannot be detected you must understand the nature of gravity.
Which I suppose you understand better than the world's top particle physicists? What are you waiting for, go get your Nobel prize! Are you going to give us a summary of why we can't see it? No? Well then, you're talking out of your hat again, aren't you.

Quote
Please read the following work carefully, as it explains the physics behind subquarks (the Black Sun emits subquarks), the real nature of the atom: ether vortices.

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf
It explains nothing of the kind, it's based on something made up by some people who imagined what subatomic particles looked like and then claimed they were psychic. It's about as believable as James's nocturnal conversations with the moonshramps.

Quote
Again, here is the original image:
NO! We don't need to see it again! STOP!


Quote
Now, the words of F. Bruenjes: I have increased the color saturation slightly to better show the green thru red corona colors, otherwise the image is truthful."


No modification of the size of the Black Sun, no modification of the distance.
I never said there was any modification of size, and as we have seen, the distance you talk of is meaningless and baseless.
Quote
Here is the same photograph as above, magnified: it immediately shatters everything we have been taught about the real cause of the solar eclipse:
NOT AGAIN, PLEASE!  :'(  :'(  >:(

Quote
Game over.

Yes, it most certainly is.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
You know, every day, I wonder why I continue logging on to this website. And every day I log on. This is why. To watch these things play out and be completely shocked by the idiotic conspiracy theories I see Levee post.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
You know, every day, I wonder why I continue logging on to this website. And every day I log on. This is why. To watch these things play out and be completely shocked by the idiotic conspiracy theories I see Levee post.

Yes, he's a little gold nugget amidst all the dross, isn't he?
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
thinkingman wrote:

I don't know if I would consider myself privileged, although I come from a town where most people view everyone that lives in it as "privileged." I had to work for everything I have, nothing was given to me, including jobs. I had to apply, send out resumes, and qualify to get the job I have. It doesn't pay much, but it does pay the bills. You're right, I can't speak for everyone in America, unemployment is up quite high. Maybe I misspoke back there. But there really isn't need for murdering or raping. And I can't see the average joe going and raping someone in the "heat of the moment." Most people know what "no" means. Unless you're considering the average joe a drunk or a drug addict.


You are no thinking man. You can be accused of illegally carrying along a brain inside your skull.

You have never offered anything here, other than common place bullshit; please shut the f*** up.



The Moon is following its usual orbit as usual, is it hard to understand? The solar eclipse cannot be caused by the Moon.

Your comments are a joke, I hope you understand this.


There are no 148,998,600 km between the ISS/Atlantis and the Sun in the following videos:

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">International Space Station (ISS) - Space Shuttle Atlantis Docking Silhouette against sun.


#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Space Shuttle Atlantis Seen in front of the Sun

Stop making a fool of yourself knowledge...there is no way you can possibly believe again in the official figures: in these videos there are no 149,000,000 km between the Sun and the ISS/Altantis.



No, my friend, there are no 384,000 km between the photographer and the "Moon" in this following photograph:



Perhaps you need an urgent visit to your local eye doctor...


http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf

This work is writtten by none other than Dr. Stephen Phillips, who lectured at Cavendish Lab, and who obtained a Phd in quantum physics at UCLA.

It includes the best proofs available today that the atom is indeed formed/made up of vortices; it demonstrates clearly that the Rutherford-Bohr model is completely false. Do your homework.


No matter how much you try to deny the facts, there are no 384,000 km between what is considered officially to be the Moon and F. Bruenjes, not by any long shot:




Your opinions are an unbelievable proof of how deeply you have been brainwashed by Nasa...



A planet/satellite located at some 384,000 km distance would look COMPLETELY DIFFERENT; this single photograph is a certain proof that we have been lied to all along for the past 250 years as to the nature of the heliocentric solar system.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 12:57:05 AM by levee »

Where are your proofs? can you enlighten us about those videos?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Also, isn't the general consensus among FET that "sky gears" are controlled by angels?

It is not. At least no more so than people still believing that Ra carries the sun across the sky in a barge.

What controls sky gears?  Because I think the only explanation (and I've been away from the forum for a while) I've ever heard about the origin of FE or the controller of sky gears is God and angels.

I am unsure what controls the sky gears, but I have no reason to credit a supernatural explanation.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Also, isn't the general consensus among FET that "sky gears" are controlled by angels?

It is not. At least no more so than people still believing that Ra carries the sun across the sky in a barge.

What controls sky gears?  Because I think the only explanation (and I've been away from the forum for a while) I've ever heard about the origin of FE or the controller of sky gears is God and angels.

I am unsure what controls the sky gears, but I have no reason to credit a supernatural explanation.

Why is it that REers are so quick to assume the supernatural when presented with the unknown?  Do you think it's their strong ties to religion?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Also, isn't the general consensus among FET that "sky gears" are controlled by angels?

It is not. At least no more so than people still believing that Ra carries the sun across the sky in a barge.

What controls sky gears?  Because I think the only explanation (and I've been away from the forum for a while) I've ever heard about the origin of FE or the controller of sky gears is God and angels.

I am unsure what controls the sky gears, but I have no reason to credit a supernatural explanation.

Why is it that REers are so quick to assume the supernatural when presented with the unknown?  Do you think it's their strong ties to religion?

Because we're still waiting for a theory behind the celestial gears.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
thinkingman wrote:

I don't know if I would consider myself privileged, although I come from a town where most people view everyone that lives in it as "privileged." I had to work for everything I have, nothing was given to me, including jobs. I had to apply, send out resumes, and qualify to get the job I have. It doesn't pay much, but it does pay the bills. You're right, I can't speak for everyone in America, unemployment is up quite high. Maybe I misspoke back there. But there really isn't need for murdering or raping. And I can't see the average joe going and raping someone in the "heat of the moment." Most people know what "no" means. Unless you're considering the average joe a drunk or a drug addict.


You are no thinking man. You can be accused of illegally carrying along a brain inside your skull.

You have never offered anything here, other than common place bullshit; please shut the f*** up.

I'm sorry, did I make you angry? Why don't you quote some more out of context responses from different threads and call me stupid?
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
We can have a separate discussion for the three different stellar orbits (southern/northern circumpolar and regular).

Let us now explore further the myths about the moon which relate to our discussion (which, of course, the enquiring minds that want to know belonging to knowledge and thinking amoeba do accept without a question).


The Moon and the Sun could not have attained a spherical shape in the first place. Here is a brief, exceptional demonstration.

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.

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).



DO YOU UNDERSTAND these things knowledge?

You have lost each and every debate so far because of your lack of knowledge.


You assert that the Moon orbits the Earth based on an attractive gravity model.

Here is another brief demonstration that the gases in the upper atmosphere do not obey any kind of an attractive gravity law.


The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.”  This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:

“There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.”

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?


Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the “mixing effect of the wind.” The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: “As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights.”  Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.



knowledge, do you understand what is being debated here? If the gases do not obey an attractive gravity law, HOW THEN could the Moon do so?



Have you ever asked yourself about the origin of the Moon? No?

Here the Moon paradoxes:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=709#p31101


The nebular and tidal theories alike regard the planets as derivatives of the sun, and the satellites as derivatives of the planets. The problem of the origin of the moon can be regarded as disturbing to the tidal theory. Being smaller than the earth, the moon completed earlier the process of cooling and shrinking, and the lunar volcanoes had already ceased to be active. It is calculated that the moon possesses a lighter specific weight than the earth. It is assumed that the moon was produced from the superficial layers of the earth's body, which are rich in light silicon, whereas the core of the earth, the main portion of its body, is made of heavy metals, particularly iron. But this assumption postulates the origin of the moon as not simultaneous with the origin of the earth; the earth, being formed out of a mass ejected from the sun, had to undergo a process of leveling, which placed the heavy metals in the core and silicon at the periphery, before the moon parted from the earth by a new tidal distortion. This would mean two consecutive tidal distortions in a system where the chance of even one is held extremely rare. If the passing of one star near another happens among one hundred million stars once in five billion years, two occurrences like this for one and the same star seem quite incredible.

 The birth of smaller, solid planets out of the larger, gaseous ones is conjectured in order to explain the difference in the relation of  weight to volume in the larger and smaller planets; but this theory is unable to explain the difference in the specific weights of the smaller planets and their satellites. By a process of cleavage, the moon was born of the earth; but since the specific weight of the moon is greater than that of the larger planets and smaller than that of the earth, it would seem to be more in accord with the theory that the earth was born of the moon, despite its smallness.


I have just demonstrated to you knowledge, that you have a very weak understanding of the actual physics of the heliocentric planetary system.


And we haven't entered into the FAINT YOUNG SUN PARADOX discussion, which would destroy immediately any and all preconceived ideas you might have about the origin of the planets.


By the way, you should remember that in the real/alternative flat earth theory, the Moon does rise and set at regular times; and it might not be visible during the few minutes the Black Sun covers entirely the Sun in Antarctica; very easy to explain...