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

  • 72 Replies
  • 15889 Views
When I look at the sites you're refering to, I'm not surprised that you have such a flawed version of the whole world around you.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Everyone abandon ship, the Levee has struck!
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.

?

burt

  • 849
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.

You knowm ThinkingMan is a NASA agent, He told me, in private, that the Sky Gears are an accurate hypothesis corroborated by many tests, he even went further to suggest that the Sky Gears are actually kept in place by the abominable Starman (please search on the forum for more information) the abominable starman can actually be seen every monday that the moon is full, it is by humans standards, amazingly huge, and looks like a formation of stars. the abominable starman is currently in battle with the god that created him (a spider) that spins immense galaxies for pleasure, and to catch celectial debris to feed on, we are bassically spider food.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
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.

You knowm ThinkingMan is a NASA agent, He told me, in private, that the Sky Gears are an accurate hypothesis corroborated by many tests, he even went further to suggest that the Sky Gears are actually kept in place by the abominable Starman (please search on the forum for more information) the abominable starman can actually be seen every monday that the moon is full, it is by humans standards, amazingly huge, and looks like a formation of stars. the abominable starman is currently in battle with the god that created him (a spider) that spins immense galaxies for pleasure, and to catch celectial debris to feed on, we are bassically spider food.

You weren't supposed to tell them. Now that the cat is out of the bag, I suppose I can tell the rest of the story. The abominable Starman doesn't want people to know the shape of the Earth, so he pays NASA in pure 24k gold (after all, he's the Starman, he can get that shit) to keep the disinformation going. He doesn't want us to know this because he's ashamed of stepping on the Earth. After all, that's what caused the Dinosaurs to go extinct.
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.

...And yet no responses to any of Levee's arguments pointing out the blatant fallacies inherent in Heliocentric cosmology. That's about par for the course.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39095
...And yet no responses to any of Levee's arguments pointing out the blatant fallacies inherent in Heliocentric cosmology. That's about par for the course.
Since Levee's posts can be painful to read, would you please summarize some of these "blatant fallacies" that you are referring to?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
...And yet no responses to any of Levee's arguments pointing out the blatant fallacies inherent in Heliocentric cosmology. That's about par for the course.

Levee's "arguments" can't even explain his supposedly accurate 15km sun distance. All he knows how to do is endlessly copy paste post the same crap, even a year later. He got totally decimated in Googleotomy's Ham radio/moonbounce thread yet still came out totally convinced he was right and calling everyone else stupid. He's either totally deluded or a really, REALLY tallented and persistent troll.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
shmeggley, you have really lost your mind.

At the ham radio earth-moon distance thread, I flushed the toilet with googleappendectomy's and your arguments right into the sewer system.

To come back here after the bloody massacre that went on for some 20 pages, where I showed in all its glory your fulminant ignorance of the original Maxwell equations is truly delusional.


Here is the complete demolition of the RE theory right from its start.

Helium Flash Paradox



The fusion of hydrogen to helium by either the PP chain or the CNO cycle requires temperatures of the order of 10,000,000 K or higher, since only at those temperatures will there be enough hydrogen ions in the plasma with high enough velocities to tunnel through the Coulomb barrier at sufficient rates.


The Mass-5 and Mass-8 Bottlenecks

The helium that is produced as the "ash" in this thermonuclear "burning" cannot undergo fusion reactions at these temperatures or even substantially above because of a basic fact of nuclear physics in our Universe: there are no stable isotopes (of any element) having atomic masses 5 or 8. This means that the two most likely initial steps for the fusion of helium-4 (the next most abundant isotope in stars after hydrogen-1) involve combining the He-4 with H-1 to form a mass-5 isotope, or combining two He-4 nuclei to form a mass-8 isotope. But both are unstable, and so immediately fly apart before they can undergo any further reactions. This produces a bottleneck to further fusion at mass 5 and at mass 8.


High Temperatures and Helium Fusion

Only at extremely high temperatures, of order 100 million K, can this bottleneck be circumvented by a highly improbable reaction. At those temperatures, the fusion of two He-4 nuclei forms highly unstable Beryllium-8 at a fast enough rate that there is always a very small equilibrium concentration of Be-8 at any one instant.

The situation is somewhat like running water through a sieve. Normally the sieve holds no water because it drains out as fast as it is added. However, if the flow of water into the sieve is made fast enough, a small equilibrium amount of water will be in the sieve at any instant because even the sieve cannot empty the water fast enough to keep up with the incoming water.

This small concentration of Be-8 can begin to undergo reactions with other He-4 nuclei to produce an excited state of the mass-12 isotope of Carbon. This excited state is unstable, but a few of these excited Carbon nuclei emit a gamma-ray quickly enough to become stable before they disintegrate. This extremely improbable sequence is called the triple-alpha process because the net effect is to combine 3 alpha particles (that is, 3 He-4 nuclei) to form a C-12 nucleus.



And, of course, this scenario is based on the following assumption: gravity compresses the core where, at high temperature and pressure, nuclear fusion occurs.


But there is no such thing as attractive gravity:


http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35541


http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35542


The helium flash paradox NULLIFIES, DESTROYS ANY RE THEORIES ABOUT THE BIG BANG, AND SPACE TIME CONTINUUM.


STARS EXPLODE AND SUPERNOVAS

PRODUCE HEAVY ELEMENTS

The problem—The Big Bang only produced hydrogen and helium. Somehow, the 90 heavier (post-helium) elements had to be made. The theorists had to figure out a way to account for their existence.

The theory—The first stars, which were formed, were so-called 'first-generation stars' (also called 'population III stars'). They contained only lighter elements (hydrogen and helium). Then all of these stars repeatedly exploded. Billions upon billions of stars kept exploding, for billions of years. Gradually, these explosions are said to have produced all our heavier elements.

This concept is as wild as those preceding it.

1 - Another imaginative necessity. Like all the other aspects of this theory, this one is included in order to somehow get the heavier (post-helium) elements into the universe. The evolutionists admit that the Big Bang would only have produced hydrogen and helium.

2 - The nuclear gaps at mass 5 and 8 make it impossible for hydrogen or helium to change itself into any of the heavier elements. This is an extremely important point, and is called the 'helium mass 4 gap' (that is, there is a gap immediately after helium 4). Therefore exploding stars could not produce the heavier elements. (Some scientists speculate that a little might be produced, but even that would not be enough to supply all the heavier elements now in our universe.) Among nuclides that can actually be formed, gaps exists at mass 5 and 8. Neither hydrogen nor helium can jump the gap at mass 5. This first gap is caused by the fact that neither a proton nor a neutron can be attached to a helium nucleus of mass 4. Because of this gap, the only element that hydrogen can normally change into is helium. Even if it spanned this gap, it would be stopped again at mass 8. Hydrogen bomb explosions produce deuterum (hydrogen 2), which, in turn, forms helium 4. In theory, the hydrogen bomb chain reaction of nuclear changes could continue changing into ever heavier elements until it reached uranium;—but the process is stopped at the gap at mass 5. If it were not for that gap, our sun would be radiating uranium toward us!

'In the sequence of atomic weight numbers 5 and 8 are vacant. That is, there is no stable atom of mass 5 or mass 8 . . The question then is: How can the build-up of elements by neutron capture get by these gaps? The process could not go beyond helium 4 and even if it spanned this gap it would be stopped again at mass 8. This basic objection to Gamow’s theory is a great disappointment in view of the promise and philosophical attractiveness of the idea.'—*William A. Fowler, California Institute of Technology, quoted in Creation Science, p. 90.

Clarification: If you will look at any standard table of the elements, you will find that the atomic weight of hydrogen is 1.008. (Deuterum is a form of hydrogen with a weight of 2.016.) Next comes helium (4.003), followed by lithium (6.939), beryllium (9.012), boron (10.811), etc. Gaps in atomic weight exist at mass 5 and 8.

But cannot hydrogen explosions cross those gaps? No. Nuclear fision (a nuclear bomb or reactor) splits (unevenly halves) uranium into barium and technetium. Nuclear fusion (a hydrogen bomb) combines (doubles) hydrogen into deuterum (helium 2), which then doubles into helium 4—and stops there. So a hydrogen explosion (even in a star) does not go across the mass 5 gap.

We will now ASSUME that hydrogen and helium explosions could go across the gaps at mass 5 and 8:

3 - There has not been enough theoretical time to produce all the needed heavier elements that now exist. We know from spectrographs that heavier elements are found all over the universe. The first stars are said to have formed about 250 million years after the initial Big Bang explosion. (No one ever dates the Big Bang over 20 billion years ago, and the date has recently been lowered to 15 billions years ago.) At some lengthy time after the gas coalesced into 'first-generation' stars, most of them are theorized to have exploded and then, 250 million years later, reformed into 'second-generation' stars. These are said to have exploded into 'third-generation' stars. Our sun is supposed to be a second- or third-generation star.

4 - There are no population III stars (also called first-generation stars) in the sky. According to the theory, there should be 'population III' stars, containing only hydrogen and helium, many of which exploded and made 'population II' (second-generation stars), but there are only population I and II stars (*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, 1984, pp. 35-36).

5 - Random explosions do not produce intricate orbits. The theory requires that countless billions of stars exploded. How could haphazard explosions result in the marvelously intricate circlings that we find in the orbits of suns, stars, binary stars, galaxies, and star clusters? Within each galactic system, hundreds of billions of stars are involved in these interrelated orbits. Were these careful balancings not maintained, the planets would fall into the stars, and the stars would fall into their galactic centers—or they would fly apart! Over half of all the stars in the sky are in binary systems, with two or more stars circling one another. How could such astonishing patterns be the result of explosions? Because there are no 'first generation' ('Population I') stars, the Big Bang theory requires that every star exploded at least one or two times. But random explosions never produce orbits.

6 - There are not enough supernova explosions to produce the needed heavier elements. There are 81 stable elements and 90 natural elements. Each one has unusual properties and intricate orbits. When a star explodes, it is called a nova. When a large star explodes, it becomes extremely bright for a few weeks or months and is called a supernova. It is said that only the explosions of supernovas could produce much of the needed heavier elements, yet there have been relatively few such explosions.

7 - Throughout all recorded history, there have been relatively few supernova explosions. If the explosions occurred in the past, they should be occurring now. Research astronomers tell us that one or two supernova explosions are seen every century, and only 16 have exploded in our galaxy in the past 2,000 years. Past civilizations carefully recorded each one. The Chinese observed one, in A.D. 185, and another in A.D. 1006. The one in 1054 produced the Crab nebula, and was visible in broad daylight for weeks. It was recorded both in Europe and the Far East. Johannes Kepler wrote a book about the next one, in 1604. The next bright one was 1918 in Aquila, and the latest in the Veil Nebula in the Large Magellanic Cloud on February 24, 1987.

'Supernovae are quite different . . and astronomers are eager to study their spectra in detail. The main difficulty is their rarity. About 1 per 650 years is the average for any one galaxy . . The 1885 supernova of Andromeda was the closest to us in the last 350 years.'—*Isaac Asimov, New Guide to Science (1984), p. 48.

8 - Why did the stellar explosions mysteriously stop? The theory required that all the stars exploded, often. The observable facts are that, throughout recorded history, stars only rarely explode. In order to explain this, evolutionists postulate that 5 billion years ago, the explosions suddenly stopped. Very convenient. When the theory was formulated in the 1940s, through telescopes astronomers could see stars whose light left them 5 billion light-years ago. But today, we can see stars that are 15 billion light-years away. Why are we not seeing massive numbers of stellar explosions far out in space? The stars are doing just fine; it is the theory which is wrong.

9 - The most distant stars, which are said to date nearly to the time of the Big Bang explosion, are not exploding,—and yet they contain heavier elements. We can now see out in space to nearly the beginning of the Big Bang time. Because of the Hubble telescope, we can now see almost as far out in space as the beginning of the evolutionists’ theoretical time. But, as with nearby stars, the farthest ones have heavier elements (are 'second-generation'), and they are not exploding any more frequently than are the nearby ones.

10 - Supernovas do not throw off enough matter to make additional stars. There are not many stellar explosions and most of them are small-star (nova) explosions. Yet novas cast off very little matter. A small-star explosion only loses a hundred-thousandth of its matter; a supernova explosion loses about 10 percent; yet even that amount is not sufficient to produce all the heavier elements found in the planets, interstellar gas, and stars. So supernovas—Gamow’s fuel source for nearly all the elements in the universe—occur far too infrequently and produce far too small an amount of heavy elements—to produce the vast amount that exists in the universe.

11 - Only hydrogen and helium have been found in the outflowing gas from supernova explosions. The theory requires lots of supernova explosions in order to produce heavy elements. But there are not enough supernovas,—and research indicates that they do not produce heavy elements! All that was needed was to turn a spectroscope toward an exploded supernova and analyze the elements in the outflowing gas from the former star. *K. Davidson did that in 1982, and found that the Crab nebula (resulting from an A.D. 1054 supernova) only has hydrogen and helium. This means that, regardless of the temperature of the explosion, the helium mass 4 gap was never bridged. (It had been theorized that a supernova would generate temperatures high enough to bridge the gap. But the gap at mass 4 and 8 prevented it from occurring.)

12 - An explosion of a star would not produce another star. It has been theorized that supernova explosions would cause nearby gas to compress and form itself into new stars. But if a star exploded, it would only shoot outward and any gas encountered would be pushed along with it.


A complete demonstration that the RE are the most ignorant bunch of folks that have the audacity to participate in scientific discussions.


Next time we meet, we go into fifth gear: the faint young sun paradox, the impossibility of a spherically shaped sun, the galactic orbit paradox, and much more.

shmeggley, do not kid yourself: it takes less than 2 minutes to discover you have no qualitication to even dream to debate with me, given your total ignorance of the helium flash paradox.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
I actually read all that Sandokhan, but you need an editor because you say the same thing over and over.

You failed to mention that lithium was created in the Big Bang as well.

Yes supernovas do not happen that often, but fortunately there are a mind boggling amount of stars. So many that if you point a telescope anywhere in the sky, there is a better than 50% chance you will observe a supernova that night. (Not a home telescope, but one in an observatory).

I have never heard that nucleosynthesis through stellar fusion was a strictly linear process going through each atomic mass in turn. Does one of your sources speak to this?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
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.

Since when have photographs been acceptable pieces of evidence in the Flat Earth Society?

I'm just going to say what all Flat Earther's say in regards to images of a spherical earth; photoshopped.

*EDIT* Also as a side note, how could you possibly know what a 370km high satellite would look like through a telescope as it transits across the sun? You have no other data point to compare it to, you don't have an example of a satellite 1km high transiting a 20 meter diameter sun at an altitude of 500km which is presumably your depiction of the heavens, so how can you know anything?

Seems like motivated reasoning to me, once again...


« Last Edit: June 26, 2013, 06:58:33 AM by RyanTG »

Like this one?  ;)

Like this one?  ;)


Clearly, the Sun is only 1cm in diameter. This photo is certain proof of it. I don't understand how people can think it's a huge ball of fire much larger than the Earth. Look at how it fits between two fingers!

*

Genius

  • 2180
  • Professor of Geniustology
Look at this artist's rendition of the internal of a Dyson Sphere:



Although clearly fake, it shows that the creation of pictures that suggests any idea as to the Earth's shape can be easily faked. It would be bad for me to go about, waving this as proof.

Good proof for the RET, however, is the large amount of amateur pictures and videos out there. Along with videos and photos from before decent video/photo editors were available. I have suggested that the FES use a weather balloon to ensure that the Earth is not round, and so they can confidently continue their debate against the "conspiracy", but it is clear this will not be done. Anyone that knows me on this site will be aware I lacked the brains to safely get the weather balloon up and back, but many here seem to be smart, if not misguided.

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Weather balloon GPS space flight iPhone camera footage homemade spacecraft 100,000 ft altitude HD

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">100,000 ft. from a weather balloon

The point of this post is to just make sure that no more pictures are used as evidence of anything. Science, peeps, science. Even if I suck at it.
The earth is round because the space man said so.