How the sun and moon are held up (photoelectric effect)

1. Has nothing to do with my theory.

Your theory attempts to explain how the sun and moon got where they are, it has everything to do with it, please answer the question.

Was Nucleocosmochronology "discovered" by Round earth or flat earth scientists? How do you know it isnt a complete lie?

Nucleocosmochronology is not part of RE science. It is part of Nucleocosmochronology. It does not apply only to the earth. And like I said, it wasn't the ONLY method used to determine the sun's age, it's just the most efficient. Please answer the question. If you insist on dismissing Nucleocosmochronology, you must first demonstrate how it is invalid and/or flawed.

Unless you intend on flying the the sun and moon and discovering what type of metal they are and doing the same with the earths core I cannot provide you with that answer.

If you can't provide the strenght of the repulsion and the calculations involved in it, then your theory is invalid. There is no need to visit either the sun or moon to determine this. Things can't exist just because you say so.

No, the whole of the earths core would have been ionised.

Then why would only the sun and moon make it up there? Why didn't the rest of the earth behave in the same way?

My theory that IR was coming from the UA maybe flawed, but what is there to say that it isnt coming from somewhere other than the UA?

If it is then you have to explain it.

Whats to say that aeroplanes cannot be non-magnetic and therefore protecting the passengers inside?

Can you provide any explanation as to why?/how they would be?

My theory for their rotation is that the concentration of EMR must fluctuate in a reguluar way, changing the amount of charge forced up on it and therefore weakening/strengthening the repulsion of the discs therefore allowing them to move in a regular pattern.

That is not logical. What you are proposing would only cause their altitude to vary. They would be going up and down, but not in circle. And it still would not account for the seasons.

No, particle physics and the photoelectric effect (as I proposed) most probably have absoltely nothing to do with the fact that the sun is burning and the moon is not.  This doesnt have any relevence to how they got where they are.

Nucleocosmochronology is not part of RE science

Then why has the conspiricy used it to "prove" the age of the sun and the galactical disc? Surely this is an example of them tricking you into believing the sun has to be of that age.

But that is the easy way out and I refuse to take that stance.

Cosmochronology is based upon the amount of radioactive decay which has occured in longstanding radioactive isotopes such as those of Uranium and Thorium.  What is to say that the half lives of these elements had not been massively shortened by the way that they were stored/the state and where they were in nature before they were mined.

It has been long taught that the hlaf life of radioactive materals cannot be changed by their environment and that they are independant from any other input.  A physicist named Claus Rolfs has discovered that if in the correct environment half lives can be almost cut down by millions of years.

This is done by the radioactive material being cased in another metal, usually a transition metal (although it doesn't really make much difference). This in itself decreases the half life massively and to make it even more effective is by lowering the temperature.  The lower the temperature; the faster the radioactive decay.

Whats to say that these radioactive metals such as Uranium and Thorium had not have been in a natural state surrounded by a metal? Whats to say that this wasnt at a temperature lower than room temperature?

In essence this means that cosmochronology may well be completely and utterly flawed and nothing can be proven by the "age" of radioactive metals by the amount of decay that has happened in them.  Thus it would be pretty much impossible to determine the age of the sun/moon because we do not know the environment in which the radioactive metals have been kept.

Also, this theory assumes that these metals were produced by supernovas and waste left from the production of the sun.  All of this relies upon the theory of quantum gravity and the gravitomagnetism effect. Which of course on a flat earth, do not exist.




I cannot determine the strength of the repulsion because i would need to know what metals the sun and moon are.  Each metal has its own independant costant of energy needed to ionise it and therefore the flux density of the magnetic force it produces.  Also the hieght of the discs would depend upon the masses of the discs, this is also impossible to know unless I was to know the Atomic mass of the element in them.


Metals can only be ionised in the way i described not non metals.  This would have had the effect it did have on the discs because these would have been single gaint metallic structures and therefore its ionisation(loss of electrons) would have been shared throughout the whole lattice therefore making it become more easily charged than any other metals on the earth.

Quote:
My theory that IR was coming from the UA maybe flawed, but what is there to say that it isnt coming from somewhere other than the UA?  


If it is then you have to explain it.

It probably is the background radiation of the big bang.  And dont say this is based on gravitational theorem because its not.  Its all about quantum fluctuations in a pure vacuum.

Quote:
Whats to say that aeroplanes cannot be non-magnetic and therefore protecting the passengers inside?


Can you provide any explanation as to why?/how they would be?

They would be made of a non ionising substance such as metamaterials.

Quote:
My theory for their rotation is that the concentration of EMR must fluctuate in a reguluar way, changing the amount of charge forced up on it and therefore weakening/strengthening the repulsion of the discs therefore allowing them to move in a regular pattern.  


That is not logical. What you are proposing would only cause their altitude to vary. They would be going up and down, but not in circle. And it still would not account for the seasons.

Not if the charges were fluctuating so that they effect one side of the disc all the time.  If two points in the core which was particularly strongly ionised were opposite each other and moving round like a bicycle wheel (this is called drift velocity) they would push against one side of the discs and move it along, rather like a ruler turning in a circle pushing two rubbers (or erasers as you call them in America) around with it.

If the the repulsion was to push the sun and moon "north" and south alternately slightly every 6 months then it would variate the amont of sunlight given to the north and southern (for lack of a better word) "hemispheres"(although they would of course not be hemispheres in a flat world)

Right, so cosmochronology is wrong (conviniently, it proves your theory wrong) but the theory behind ionisation and photoelectric effects (which conveniently help your theory) are correct? How does that work?

No, particle physics and the photoelectric effect (as I proposed) most probably have absoltely nothing to do with the fact that the sun is burning and the moon is not. This doesnt have any relevence to how they got where they are.

Yes it does. A chunk of the earth magically lifted through spontaneous ionisation would never be able to burn as stronly as the sun does for billions of years. The material simply wouldn't last that long. Since your theory says that the sun is merely a piece of the surface of the earth, it is rendered invalid by the fact that that material could not burn that long. Refusing to answer the question doesn't make your theory any more credible. It's like saying a single log can fuel a campfire for 10 years.

You haven't explained either why insane amount of metals would be at the surface of the planet rather than deeper bellow.

And like I said, cosmochronology is only one of the ways you can measure the age of the sun, if you insist the sun it NOT older than the earth, you will have to demonstrate that each and everyone of them is false.

But in any case, it is a known and accepted fact that the sun is older than the earth, it has been measured and verified. So your theory holds no credibility.

If you are still interested in defending it however,  I suggest you begin with the basis. Reproduce this phenomenon of metal discs rotating above matter on a smaller scale.

God luck with that.

No I have proven that cosmochronology is fundementally flawed.

You cannot perform the tasks which it encompasses without using U which has existed in nature for the past few billion years.  Unless you happen to have some magically stored in your cellar which you caught during the creation of the earth and stored it in a non decaying non metal box at room temperature. Until you suddenly decided that you could use it to prove the fact that the sun is older than the earth.

When did I say that this metal has to be something which exist upon earth now?  Why can't such a mass be performing such an act?  For all we know the production of light and heat could just be the bi product of a massive reversible reaction which has reached equilibrium and stayed like it for the past however long life has existed upon earth.


Maybe this "insane amount of metals" was below the surface of the earth, this wouldn't matter because the discs would have been forced upwards anyway.

The round earth is a "known and accepted fact". Only in round earth science is the sun "known and accepted" as being older than the earth.

If you are still interested in defending it however, I suggest you begin with the basis. Reproduce this phenomenon of metal discs rotating above matter on a smaller scale.

Although they are not rotating, this is effectively what happens to mag lev trains. I've already made one at home and am giving an informative speech and demo about how they work to a large audience along with my piers.

you can make one yourself if you really want  

http://www.memyi.us/2004/01/make_your_own_m.html


God luck to you too

You have not demonstrated that any of the phenmenons you say are false are actually false. It is only your opinion that they are, and that every scientist in the world is wrong except you.

As I said, if you want us to accept that the age of the sun is wrong, then demonstrate how every method used to calculate it's age is wrong. Calling it"round earth science" doesn't show that it's wrong. As long as a single one of them is valid your theory is bull.

And I will point out that you have no problem with "round earth science" when it helps your theory.

Although they are not rotating, this is effectively what happens to mag lev trains

No, this is simply magnetic repulsion.

When you get them to rotate, with one of the catching fire and then having a shifting periodic rotation, then you can say your thoery is correct..

Like I said, your theory has no credibility.

"It starts this way because  I say so, then maybe this happens, then maybe this phenomenon could happen, then maybe that and then my conclusion is corrrect"
Some scientist.

So I havnt proven the cosmochronography to be wrong?

Some reading.

And as far as I know that isn't in my opinion, it's in the opinion of the International board of Physicists, CERN, the nobel prize and New Scientist.

Give me the theories that you think proves the age of the sun without using gravitational theorem and I will.  Also, just because one or two scientific method that prove something are valid, this does not mean that that something cannot happen.  Look at flying, until we discovered lift, scientists were dead certain that it was impossible for any type of machine to fly at all unless it was less dense than air.

Well look how wrong they were.

I only have a problem with round science if it is used to "prove" the earth is round.  Because it is wrong, the earth is flat.  Co-incidentally, the photoelectric effect has nothing to do with proving the earth being flat, it does not matter what shape the earth is; it still works.

No, this is simply magnetic repulsion.

Then what is electron pair repulsion?

All a magnetic field is is an area around something where it can induce a force upon something else.  This does not mean that it has to be a metallic magnet.  A magnet is anything which has a magnetic field. An ion is a type of magnet.

When you get them to rotate, with one of the catching fire and then having a shifting periodic rotation, then you can say your thoery is correct.

The simple movement of magnets under magnets makes them rotate, I have already explained this.  The sun catching fire still has nothing whatsoever to do with my theory of the photoelectric effect, hence I did not include it in my original hypothesis.  I do not know why it caught alight but again, this has nothing to do with why it is where it is.

"It starts this way because I say so, then maybe this happens, then maybe this phenomenon could happen, then maybe that and then my conclusion is corrrect"

Correction:

It starts this way because it is proven, then this would happen because it is common scientific knowledge that it definately does happen, so this would mean that this happens because if this were to happen then this would explain this (tests using common knowledge to give scientific proof).

I only have a problem with round science if it is used to "prove" the earth is round.Because it is wrong, the earth is flat.

In light of this, I'll just let this topic die.

Oh, and I don't remember anyone proving that flight was impossible.

Don't you mean possible?

but still,

I did.

The answer was:

They would be made of a non ionising substance such as metamaterials.

A physicist named Claus Rolfs has discovered that if in the correct environment half lives can be almost cut down by millions of years.

The half life of a radioactive element can be reduced by approximately 0.001%, the half life of Uranium 238 is 4 468 000 000 years, meaning the half life could only be reduced by about 40 000 years. Radioactive dating on the scale of billions of years is only accurate to about 100 000 years.

Furthermore, the effect of reducing half life occurs in SUPERCOOLED environments, i.e. < 1 Kelvin or < -272.15 celcius

I think we can safely say that the sun does not express any characteristics of a supercooled environment.

you're still missing the point.  The sun, to burn even as log as we've been alive must be extremely massive.  hence the force to lift it is equally large.  If this is the case, there is enough current (yes, current, as in touching both ends of a VERY large battery) flowing through the space we live in to support that mass.  You're talking about millions of amps.  The human heart dies at 1 miliamp.  1 1/1000 of an amp across the heart is lethal.  think about that one.  and if you say we've adapted, please lay on your side.  The Flux (change in area in a magnetic field) would create a moving charge through your heart, yet again killing you.  This theory simply isn't in any way plausible.

To be able to get the gist of this post, you will have to understand the basic principles of the daul wave-particle theory of EMR (electromagnetic radiation).

Basically, it is understood and accepted by most physicists, Round or flat earthers that if something acts as a wave then it also has a quantum particle equivalent.  This can account from visible light all the way to gravity (although this is currently undiscovered; quantum physicists suggest that there is such thing and a gravity wave and therefore there has to be a particle of "gravity" which they have called the graviton).

The particle equivilent of any wave in the electro magnetic spectrum is called the photon.  This has no mass because it is only theoretical and is only a way of describing the way in which the EMR behaves, however, it is made up of pure energy (although you could work out the quantum weight of the photon by rearranging Einstein's equation of relativity e=mc²) and to work out the energy of one single photon we can use the equation e=hf (e being energy, h being Plancks constant - 6.626068 × 10^-34 m² kg^-1 - and f being the frequency of the wave equivalent of the photon).  Therefore, the energy contained within each photon depends on the frequency of the wave.  Therefore radiowaves (which have the lowest frequency) have the least amount of energy per photon and Gamma rays (which have the highest frequency) have the most.

So onto the easy part which you guys can understand!

When a photon hits a metal, if it has enough energy, it "kicks" out an electron and therefore positively ionising it.  However for low frequency EMR the photon may not contain enough energy to "kick" out the electron.  For most metals the minimum amount of energy required is that of ultraviolet however the energy required varys from metal to metal and in some cases only the high frequency end of visible light is needed.


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.

My theory for their rotation is that the concentration of EMR must fluctuate in a reguluar way, changing the amount of charge forced up on it and therefore weakening/strengthening  the repulsion of the discs therefore allowing them to move in a regular pattern.

Thats effectively it.

If there any queries then I would love to hear them so you can either personal message me or, even better reply to this post so that I can take it into account before I place it upon the general forums to be debated.

Thankyou for reading this.

can you prove the moon even exists?

The moon is one of 3 things

(1) A drawing God put on the ceiling
(2) a Light on the ceiling of Satan's Kitchen
(3) a hole in the great curtain, which is letting us see into Heaven

As far as I am aware, only idiots and politicians can talk at length about subjects they have no knowledge of. I suspect Rogherio is the former.

Of course the damn moon exists.

You see it (very precise with good telescopes), people where there and it all (moon orbiting the earth, earth orbiting the sun) makes perfect sense and nobody is able to disprove it - even if a lot of people tried. It's just true.

Wow, that's a convincing argument.  :roll:

"People where there"

Well then it's settled.  The moon actually exists cause some guy said so on an internet forum.

Wow, that's a convincing argument.  :roll:

"People were there"

Well then it's settled.  The moon actually exists cause some guy said so on an internet forum.

That would be true - if I would just have made it up. But 'people' were on the moon. And as that is a fact I don't have to explain it...

P.S.: I know that you will come up with your conspiracy-nonsense - but that isn't a valid argument.

LoL Any of you FE'ers got a education? :O omg

I have several objections to this "theory." First of all, as you point out, most metals do not relinquish electrons unless the electromagnetic radiation is of sufficient frequency (small enough wavelength), typically ultraviolet (~10^-8 m). However, the cosmic background radiation tapers off sharply at wavelengths less than 10^-3 m. Moreover, the TOTAL intensity of the cosmic background is extremely small, often measured in nW/m^2 (nanowatts per meter squared). I would like to point out that the average lightbulb outputs about 100 Watts, which is 10^11 times more power than the background outputs per square meter--and I guarantee you your average lightbulb is unable to hold up 1 square meter of our planet. Granted, if everything was perfectly static, no work would be done. However, you yourself point out that the "discs" move, to account for the motion of the sun, etc.

            Second of all, you propose that:

 In order for this to work I 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.

         However, it has been measured (and proven beyond a doubt) that the cosmic microwave background is approximately isotropic, i.e. we see equal intensities from all directions in space. Why would it be isotropic from space, but directional underneath us? Furthermore, momentum has to be conserved in your theory. Therefore, if there is a directional source of radiation (photons have momentum), the "flat earth" would gain momentum from collisions with these photons, and  move "upwards" away from your mysterious source of cosmic radiation.

           Third of all, I am curious as to how your source of photons passes through the earth and hits the "metal" sun and moon. The vast majority of photons are reflected or absorbed by several centimeters of metal, and the intensity of electrons that pass through tapers off as a negative exponential. However, the earth is thousands of miles thick.

           Fourth of all, for electrostatics, it holds that for every force there is an opposite and equal reaction. If the earth-sun-moon system were in a line (not rotating about each other), then the force on the earth by the sun and moon would be equal and opposite to the force of the sun and moon by the earth. However, the sun is known to be much more massive than the earth. Thus, it would hardly budge, whereas the earth would rapidly accelerate away from the sun.  F=ma for the win?

            In addition, you seem to accept that gravity exists from your first paragraph. However, the relative strength of gravity compared to an electromagnetic field is known. Thus, one can estimate the fraction of atoms/molecules that must be ionized for your theory to work. Simply put, we do not observe so many ionized molecules, nor such strong electric fields.

           Lastly, the removed electrons would have to be ejected far, far away from the earth-sun system. If they remained nearby, the sun and earth would still be approximately neutral, as they are far away from each other (perhaps they could be modeled as two dipoles, which are infinitely far from each other.) In this case, there would be no force due to electrostatics.

I'm sure I could come up with hundreds of more reasons, based on even weaker knowledge of physics, that your theory is incorrect.  I'd rather go get some food

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.  

cosmic background radiation is not "all of the wavelengths". sorry. it is microwave (~2mm wavelength according to COBE, a sattellite that according to you probably doesnt exist). you need at least UV to liberate electrons. background radiation can't ionise phuque all.

I am sorry, sir, but you are incorrect. The microwave background does encompass all wavelengths; there is a distribution of intensity as a function of wavelength. It PEAKS at frequencies termed microwave. Thus, it is called the microwave background. It is a black body spectrum corresponding to a very low temperature (~2 K). So, while the intensity tapers off sharply at higher or lower frequencies, they are part of the spectrum. Try googling cosmic background spectrum, and find a pretty graph.

I am sorry, sir, but you are incorrect. The microwave background does encompass all wavelengths; there is a distribution of intensity as a function of wavelength. It PEAKS at frequencies termed microwave. Thus, it is called the microwave background. It is a black body spectrum corresponding to a very low temperature (~2 K). So, while the intensity tapers off sharply at higher or lower frequencies, they are part of the spectrum. Try googling cosmic background spectrum, and find a pretty graph.

and how much charge would you need to hold up the sun and moon? the charge liberated by 1% of the CMBR which is itself pathetically weak?

If you read my post, you would realize I am arguing against his theory, which I called a "theory" in quotes. I use real science to debunk his crazy theory that misapplies a phenomenon in physics. Please read before criticizing! I am a round-earther!

I am not a complete moron, and didn't open that link. Is it a virus or something? If so, that's not cool, not to mention probably against forum policy regardless...like Angelina would let you see her boobs!

Its a bot, there is no point in arguing with it.

I am not a complete moron, and didn't open that link. Is it a virus or something? If so, that's not cool, not to mention probably against forum policy regardless...like Angelina would let you see her boobs!

lol... yeah how many porn sites do you know of that have a .info extension

...like Angelina would let you see her boobs!

Ever heard of Pushing Tin?

---

Purely for the benefit of the flat earth society I have unselfishlly compiled a list of movies that angelina jolie is in:

• Foxfire
• Pushing Tin
• Gia
• Taking Lives
• Original Sin
• Cyborg 2
• Mojave Moon

It's obviously not a novelty so why do people treat it like one?

well, according to you assholes, the earth is held up by fucking elephants, so who the fuck knows? rofl love the kittty btw

well, according to you assholes, the earth is held up by fraking elephants, so who the frak knows? rofl love the kittty btw

That's a joke based on a book.  We really don't know what's under the Earth.

lol i know, im jking

By the way, there is only one way in which two oppositely charged masses like the sun and earth can be held relatively stable in magnetics.  This, sadly for you, requires the metals to be SUPERCOOLED to temperatures very close to absolute zero.  Judging by the amount of infared radiation coming off the sun, there's no point in arguing that the sun is supercooled, and if the earth was supercooled, then magnets on earth would not repel, they would lock in place at set distances.  if you don't believe me look up how certain LEV trains work.

And about that neutral point...at 35,000 ft, a typical altitude for aircraft, one would be well outside the neutral zone, and be doomed, since the airplane would be moving at a VERY high speed (as airplanes do) through a magnetic field.  In case you don't know that results in very high currents, and death in organic life.  It's called magnetic induction, or flux.  As I said, if you believe in the FE model you better never move, because changing your flux in the fields needed would be far more than lethal.

why thank you.

Actually it wasn't Einstein who discovered the photoelectric effect he just wrote the relativity equation.

Einstein discovered that the photoelectric effect was due to the absorption of photons of light, and for that he was awarded the nobel prize in 1921.