Shadows in the Solar System

  • 58 Replies
  • 9840 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« Reply #30 on: April 01, 2016, 11:38:06 PM »
That phlogiston looks to be very hot, in deed.
Come come, we know the sun runs on phlogiston, helium and heavy metals! Sir Dick said so! Not the moon.
It's self-illuminated with the bio-luminescence from moon-shrimp.

See, we are leaning fast!

Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« Reply #31 on: April 03, 2016, 12:38:20 PM »
4 days and 323 views and still no FE explanation?...

Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« Reply #32 on: April 03, 2016, 01:23:14 PM »
They dont even attempt anything they dont understand or can't explain that cannot have aether or phlogiston thrown at it.

And nice photo's. That is most definitely an eclipse on jupiter. I've seen them a few times with my scope. Only ever seen saturn once. Looked great.

*

Uninvited Guest

  • 213
  • A clone cloned by a smartphone
Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« Reply #33 on: April 06, 2016, 11:28:55 AM »
So am I to assume then that there isn't an FE explanation for these shadows other than that they are produced by the sun's light?

And if the sun is able to produce such shadows, are we then to abandon the Spotlight Sun theory?

Would this place the sun further from the Earth in order to illuminate such distant objects? (and we know Jupiter is a giant because it has its orbiting moons and acts as our protector, swallowing comets and asteroids on our behalf and is therefore, quite obviously very very far away)

You can't know for sure the source of light. If you think it is the sun, show solid evidence.
The science in her trance will make the sign of cross
And we will light bonfires to appreciate the electric bulb.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« Reply #34 on: April 06, 2016, 09:00:54 PM »
So am I to assume then that there isn't an FE explanation for these shadows other than that they are produced by the sun's light?

And if the sun is able to produce such shadows, are we then to abandon the Spotlight Sun theory?

Would this place the sun further from the Earth in order to illuminate such distant objects? (and we know Jupiter is a giant because it has its orbiting moons and acts as our protector, swallowing comets and asteroids on our behalf and is therefore, quite obviously very very far away)
Actually, you bring up something very interesting, something we can actually measure (I know that is a bad FE word). We can actually see how big comets are. Some span across the sky.


Most people don't know this but comets actually have 2 tails. One made of rock/debris/dust that is what is typically shown (white). The other is an gas/ion tail that blows directly away from the Sun (blue):


In any case, we can follow the comets throughout the Solar System and gauge how big something like Jupiter actually is based on the comet's impact on its surface. Trust me, with a comet that spans many DEGREES in the sky and goes out to Jupiter that is less than 1 ARC MINUTE in size, we can tell exactly what is happening in the Solar System. We can measure the size of Jupiter.

(http://www.tony5m17h.net/1TScomet.html)
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« Reply #35 on: April 06, 2016, 09:55:09 PM »
You can't know for sure the source of light. If you think it is the sun, show solid evidence.

By this definition of "knowing for sure" you cannot "know or sure" anything. Show me solid evidence you exist.

The light coming from the sun is consistent with observations. Therefore, the light does come from the sun.

*

Uninvited Guest

  • 213
  • A clone cloned by a smartphone
Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« Reply #36 on: April 07, 2016, 07:57:06 AM »
You can't know for sure the source of light. If you think it is the sun, show solid evidence.

By this definition of "knowing for sure" you cannot "know or sure" anything. Show me solid evidence you exist.

The light coming from the sun is consistent with observations. Therefore, the light does come from the sun.

Im here writing this post. What else do you need to know?
The light coming from the sun hiting some extraneous planet on the solar system is not consistent with observations. Therefore, the light may come from other sources.
The science in her trance will make the sign of cross
And we will light bonfires to appreciate the electric bulb.

Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« Reply #37 on: April 07, 2016, 01:58:24 PM »
Im here writing this post. What else do you need to know?
The light coming from the sun hiting some extraneous planet on the solar system is not consistent with observations. Therefore, the light may come from other sources.

The post may be a figment of my imagination. And your second sentence makes no sense. "The light hitting some extraneous planet on the solar system" is an observation. One observation cannot be inconsistent with other observations. You can always add special cases to a theory to explain any observation. Doing so makes the theory more complex though, and in science, the more complex theory looses to the simpler one.

*

Uninvited Guest

  • 213
  • A clone cloned by a smartphone
Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« Reply #38 on: April 07, 2016, 03:02:50 PM »
Im here writing this post. What else do you need to know?
The light coming from the sun hiting some extraneous planet on the solar system is not consistent with observations. Therefore, the light may come from other sources.

The post may be a figment of my imagination. And your second sentence makes no sense. "The light hitting some extraneous planet on the solar system" is an observation. One observation cannot be inconsistent with other observations. You can always add special cases to a theory to explain any observation. Doing so makes the theory more complex though, and in science, the more complex theory looses to the simpler one.

It is not an observation, it is an abstraction from previous observations. You see the sun shinning and concludes it shines there too.
The science in her trance will make the sign of cross
And we will light bonfires to appreciate the electric bulb.

Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« Reply #39 on: April 08, 2016, 12:10:17 PM »
So am I to assume then that there isn't an FE explanation for these shadows other than that they are produced by the sun's light?

And if the sun is able to produce such shadows, are we then to abandon the Spotlight Sun theory?

Would this place the sun further from the Earth in order to illuminate such distant objects? (and we know Jupiter is a giant because it has its orbiting moons and acts as our protector, swallowing comets and asteroids on our behalf and is therefore, quite obviously very very far away)
Actually, you bring up something very interesting, something we can actually measure (I know that is a bad FE word). We can actually see how big comets are. Some span across the sky.


Most people don't know this but comets actually have 2 tails. One made of rock/debris/dust that is what is typically shown (white). The other is an gas/ion tail that blows directly away from the Sun (blue):


In any case, we can follow the comets throughout the Solar System and gauge how big something like Jupiter actually is based on the comet's impact on its surface. Trust me, with a comet that spans many DEGREES in the sky and goes out to Jupiter that is less than 1 ARC MINUTE in size, we can tell exactly what is happening in the Solar System. We can measure the size of Jupiter.

(http://www.tony5m17h.net/1TScomet.html)


Yes, this is a good observation for sure. We have witnessed these impacts and have tracked the comets involved in the impacts.

You can't know for sure the source of light. If you think it is the sun, show solid evidence.

By this definition of "knowing for sure" you cannot "know or sure" anything. Show me solid evidence you exist.

The light coming from the sun is consistent with observations. Therefore, the light does come from the sun.

Im here writing this post. What else do you need to know?
The light coming from the sun hiting some extraneous planet on the solar system is not consistent with observations. Therefore, the light may come from other sources.

What other light sources do you postulate? Surely if there are other light sources than can illuminate a visible planetary object then they should also be visible to us?

You ask me to show solid evidence of the sun's light on these planets... What about the oppositions? We know exactly what day of the year each planet is at opposition (exactly opposite the sun in relation to the earth) and are therefore fully illuminated. That is evidence enough!

*

Uninvited Guest

  • 213
  • A clone cloned by a smartphone
Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« Reply #40 on: April 08, 2016, 02:15:18 PM »
So am I to assume then that there isn't an FE explanation for these shadows other than that they are produced by the sun's light?

And if the sun is able to produce such shadows, are we then to abandon the Spotlight Sun theory?

Would this place the sun further from the Earth in order to illuminate such distant objects? (and we know Jupiter is a giant because it has its orbiting moons and acts as our protector, swallowing comets and asteroids on our behalf and is therefore, quite obviously very very far away)
Actually, you bring up something very interesting, something we can actually measure (I know that is a bad FE word). We can actually see how big comets are. Some span across the sky.


Most people don't know this but comets actually have 2 tails. One made of rock/debris/dust that is what is typically shown (white). The other is an gas/ion tail that blows directly away from the Sun (blue):


In any case, we can follow the comets throughout the Solar System and gauge how big something like Jupiter actually is based on the comet's impact on its surface. Trust me, with a comet that spans many DEGREES in the sky and goes out to Jupiter that is less than 1 ARC MINUTE in size, we can tell exactly what is happening in the Solar System. We can measure the size of Jupiter.

(http://www.tony5m17h.net/1TScomet.html)


Yes, this is a good observation for sure. We have witnessed these impacts and have tracked the comets involved in the impacts.

You can't know for sure the source of light. If you think it is the sun, show solid evidence.

By this definition of "knowing for sure" you cannot "know or sure" anything. Show me solid evidence you exist.

The light coming from the sun is consistent with observations. Therefore, the light does come from the sun.

Im here writing this post. What else do you need to know?
The light coming from the sun hiting some extraneous planet on the solar system is not consistent with observations. Therefore, the light may come from other sources.

What other light sources do you postulate? Surely if there are other light sources than can illuminate a visible planetary object then they should also be visible to us?

You ask me to show solid evidence of the sun's light on these planets... What about the oppositions? We know exactly what day of the year each planet is at opposition (exactly opposite the sun in relation to the earth) and are therefore fully illuminated. That is evidence enough!

The planets are really very much split. According to Space.com, Jupiter lies 460 million miles from the sun. I don't dare to say between these  460 million miles (which of course are debatable) the only source of light is the sun. How can you be sure? Im not even sure of what's happening in my backyard right now.

Yes, this should be evidence enough.
Can you show this information in numbers please? I'd like to see the prediction of how Jupiter will be illuminated for the next month.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2016, 02:18:25 PM by Uninvited Guest »
The science in her trance will make the sign of cross
And we will light bonfires to appreciate the electric bulb.

Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« Reply #41 on: April 09, 2016, 01:16:24 AM »
Im here writing this post. What else do you need to know?
The light coming from the sun hiting some extraneous planet on the solar system is not consistent with observations. Therefore, the light may come from other sources.

The post may be a figment of my imagination. And your second sentence makes no sense. "The light hitting some extraneous planet on the solar system" is an observation. One observation cannot be inconsistent with other observations. You can always add special cases to a theory to explain any observation. Doing so makes the theory more complex though, and in science, the more complex theory looses to the simpler one.

It is not an observation, it is an abstraction from previous observations. You see the sun shinning and concludes it shines there too.

That's not quite how the logic works.
We see that our planet is illuminated according to a regular pattern
We see other objects are also illuminated according to regular patterns.
We see that the pattern correlates with the object's relation to the sun
We conclude that the sun is illuminating the planets.

Can you tell me where the observation that the planets are illuminated conflicts with the conclusion that it's the sun illuminating them?

The planets are really very much split. According to Space.com, Jupiter lies 460 million miles from the sun. I don't dare to say between these  460 million miles (which of course are debatable) the only source of light is the sun. How can you be sure? Im not even sure of what's happening in my backyard right now.

Which should be evidence enough that there is no such thing as "being sure" when it comes to empirical knowledge. There are no observations that cannot be explained by the current model. Adding another source of light would complicate the model and not explain any additional observations. Therefore, there is no additional source of light.

*

Uninvited Guest

  • 213
  • A clone cloned by a smartphone
Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« Reply #42 on: April 11, 2016, 08:40:03 AM »
Im here writing this post. What else do you need to know?
The light coming from the sun hiting some extraneous planet on the solar system is not consistent with observations. Therefore, the light may come from other sources.

The post may be a figment of my imagination. And your second sentence makes no sense. "The light hitting some extraneous planet on the solar system" is an observation. One observation cannot be inconsistent with other observations. You can always add special cases to a theory to explain any observation. Doing so makes the theory more complex though, and in science, the more complex theory looses to the simpler one.

It is not an observation, it is an abstraction from previous observations. You see the sun shinning and concludes it shines there too.

That's not quite how the logic works.
We see that our planet is illuminated according to a regular pattern
We see other objects are also illuminated according to regular patterns.
We see that the pattern correlates with the object's relation to the sun
We conclude that the sun is illuminating the planets.

Can you tell me where the observation that the planets are illuminated conflicts with the conclusion that it's the sun illuminating them?

The planets are really very much split. According to Space.com, Jupiter lies 460 million miles from the sun. I don't dare to say between these  460 million miles (which of course are debatable) the only source of light is the sun. How can you be sure? Im not even sure of what's happening in my backyard right now.

Which should be evidence enough that there is no such thing as "being sure" when it comes to empirical knowledge. There are no observations that cannot be explained by the current model. Adding another source of light would complicate the model and not explain any additional observations. Therefore, there is no additional source of light.

You meant: "That's not quite how the logic works to me."

And all that source of light at night when you look at the sky is what? No source of light there?
The science in her trance will make the sign of cross
And we will light bonfires to appreciate the electric bulb.

Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« Reply #43 on: April 11, 2016, 02:06:02 PM »

You meant: "That's not quite how the logic works to me."

And all that source of light at night when you look at the sky is what? No source of light there?

Well there is the moon's reflected light, which clearly isn't bright enough to illuminate anything distant, when you consider the fact that it can be seen with the naked eye (and also has no relation to the observed shadows and phases of planetary objects) and there are stars which are so incredibly distant and abundant that none of them could be considered a single light source producing a single shadow from a particular direction. You would need a super bright, singular light source, as bright as our sun, to create such an effect. Have you observed such a light source? Oh yes, of course...the sun!!

Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« Reply #44 on: April 12, 2016, 09:48:00 PM »
You meant: "That's not quite how the logic works to me."

Do you have an objection? Or do you just not believe in logic in general?

And all that source of light at night when you look at the sky is what? No source of light there?

What it is is reflected sunlight. Are you claiming the moon illuminates Jupiter? If not, why do you bring it up?
Debating "tactics" like this really are neither new nor clever.

*

Uninvited Guest

  • 213
  • A clone cloned by a smartphone
Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« Reply #45 on: April 13, 2016, 05:40:23 AM »
You meant: "That's not quite how the logic works to me."

Do you have an objection? Or do you just not believe in logic in general?

And all that source of light at night when you look at the sky is what? No source of light there?

What it is is reflected sunlight. Are you claiming the moon illuminates Jupiter? If not, why do you bring it up?
Debating "tactics" like this really are neither new nor clever.

Sun is a star. When you look the sky at night, what do you see but stars? I don't claim to know what's illuminanting planets out there. Why do you suppose you know the universe as the back of your hand? Look this news: http://www.livescience.com/33093-chinese-two-suns-video-unexplained.html

We actually know very little about the universe. Your observation, when applied to unknown things, is only a wild guess.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2016, 05:42:35 AM by Uninvited Guest »
The science in her trance will make the sign of cross
And we will light bonfires to appreciate the electric bulb.

Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« Reply #46 on: April 13, 2016, 05:54:09 AM »
Sun is a star. When you look the sky at night, what do you see but stars? I don't claim to know what's illuminanting planets out there.

But you do claim no-one else knows, either. You are basically claiming that we cannot know anything about the universe, and that's simply false.

Why do you suppose you know the universe as the back of your hand?

Why should I assume that what I think I know is wrong? You have given me no reason to doubt that what I say is correct.

Look this news: http://www.livescience.com/33093-chinese-two-suns-video-unexplained.html

We actually know very little about the universe. Your observation, when applied to unknown things, is only a wild guess.

No, our theories are not just wild guesses. They are accurate representations of the universe as it currently appears to humans. Weird things still happen all the time, but that is because the universe is very, very complex. Feynman describes it as a game of chess played by chess masters. Just the fact that we have a decent grasp of the rules of chess doesn't mean we understand every move they make. And for the same reason the fact that we cannot explain a particular occurence doesn't mean we don't know the rules.

*

Uninvited Guest

  • 213
  • A clone cloned by a smartphone
Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« Reply #47 on: April 13, 2016, 01:53:57 PM »
Sun is a star. When you look the sky at night, what do you see but stars? I don't claim to know what's illuminanting planets out there.

But you do claim no-one else knows, either. You are basically claiming that we cannot know anything about the universe, and that's simply false.

Why do you suppose you know the universe as the back of your hand?

Why should I assume that what I think I know is wrong? You have given me no reason to doubt that what I say is correct.

Look this news: http://www.livescience.com/33093-chinese-two-suns-video-unexplained.html

We actually know very little about the universe. Your observation, when applied to unknown things, is only a wild guess.

No, our theories are not just wild guesses. They are accurate representations of the universe as it currently appears to humans. Weird things still happen all the time, but that is because the universe is very, very complex. Feynman describes it as a game of chess played by chess masters. Just the fact that we have a decent grasp of the rules of chess doesn't mean we understand every move they make. And for the same reason the fact that we cannot explain a particular occurence doesn't mean we don't know the rules.

I don't fall into assumptions judging my logic and observation to be sufficient to describe what's happening on some far-away region of the cosmos.
You assume universe is complex but on the ther hand you express dissatisfaction with my opinion about its complexities. You're the one on a forum whose members consider a flat earth model. So you should be the one to present your arguments clearly. So far you've only showed disagreement for the sake of doing it. What do you want exactly?
The science in her trance will make the sign of cross
And we will light bonfires to appreciate the electric bulb.

*

CaptainMagpie

  • 331
  • Aristibird of Knowledge
Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« Reply #48 on: April 14, 2016, 05:46:05 PM »
Sun is a star. When you look the sky at night, what do you see but stars? I don't claim to know what's illuminanting planets out there.

But you do claim no-one else knows, either. You are basically claiming that we cannot know anything about the universe, and that's simply false.

Why do you suppose you know the universe as the back of your hand?

Why should I assume that what I think I know is wrong? You have given me no reason to doubt that what I say is correct.

Look this news: http://www.livescience.com/33093-chinese-two-suns-video-unexplained.html

We actually know very little about the universe. Your observation, when applied to unknown things, is only a wild guess.

No, our theories are not just wild guesses. They are accurate representations of the universe as it currently appears to humans. Weird things still happen all the time, but that is because the universe is very, very complex. Feynman describes it as a game of chess played by chess masters. Just the fact that we have a decent grasp of the rules of chess doesn't mean we understand every move they make. And for the same reason the fact that we cannot explain a particular occurence doesn't mean we don't know the rules.

I don't fall into assumptions judging my logic and observation to be sufficient to describe what's happening on some far-away region of the cosmos.
You assume universe is complex but on the ther hand you express dissatisfaction with my opinion about its complexities. You're the one on a forum whose members consider a flat earth model. So you should be the one to present your arguments clearly. So far you've only showed disagreement for the sake of doing it. What do you want exactly?
I'm sorry but the burden of proof lies with you. If you are asserting there is an additional light source in our solar system then you are going to have to show something to back that up. Otherwise all you are doing is what you are claiming Ecthelion is doing.
fuck off penguin.  I'll take my ban to tell you to go fuck your self.  Ban please.   I am waiting.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« Reply #49 on: April 14, 2016, 08:10:11 PM »
I'm sorry but the burden of proof lies with you. If you are asserting there is an additional light source in our solar system then you are going to have to show something to back that up. Otherwise all you are doing is what you are claiming Ecthelion is doing.

Yeah, because your round Earth scientists always back their theories up with tons of evidence, right?  ::)

*

Blue_Moon

  • 846
  • Defender of NASA
Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« Reply #50 on: April 14, 2016, 08:14:28 PM »
I'm sorry but the burden of proof lies with you. If you are asserting there is an additional light source in our solar system then you are going to have to show something to back that up. Otherwise all you are doing is what you are claiming Ecthelion is doing.

Yeah, because your round Earth scientists always back their theories up with tons of evidence, right?  ::)
If it's a "theory," then yes, we do.  We're not just pulling this stuff out of our ass here. 
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« Reply #51 on: April 15, 2016, 07:13:38 AM »
I don't fall into assumptions judging my logic and observation to be sufficient to describe what's happening on some far-away region of the cosmos.

But you're wrong. Observation and logic together can form a complete model of the entire universe, if only of the universe as it appears to a human observer. Perhaps more accurately an ever more correct model, as there will never be a final one.

You assume universe is complex but on the ther hand you express dissatisfaction with my opinion about its complexities. You're the one on a forum whose members consider a flat earth model. So you should be the one to present your arguments clearly. So far you've only showed disagreement for the sake of doing it. What do you want exactly?

I want to argue, because arguing is fun. I'd like to teach people a bit about the theory of knowledge in the process. People who like to wear their ignorance like a crown are in dire need of it.

Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« Reply #52 on: April 15, 2016, 08:39:59 AM »
Reading through all the post here:

The obit of planets around the sun as reported by NASA are elliptical, NASA shows the below figures in different distances depending on location of planets along their elliptical path. They at times are closer or further out depending on its location of orbit around the sun. However if earth is stationary and everything revolves around the earth as proposed by FE proponents then I will use an “averaged” distance.

Average distance to sun from earth as reported by NASA = 93,000,000 miles
Average distance to Jupiter from earth as reported by NASA = 787,000,000 miles
Commonly used FE distance to sun from earth = 3000 miles

NASA sun distance of 93,000,000 / FE sun distance of 3000 = 31000
According to FE math the sun is approximately 31,000 times closer to earth than told to us by NASA
Then extrapolate this figure to determine a FE distance to Jupiter
787,000,000 / 31,000 = 23,387 miles, of course this is assuming there would also be an equivalent reduction in the NASA reported size of Jupiter it’s moons and other Heavenly bodies the same as FE proponents have recalculated the size of the sun. If all of these averages and recalculations were anywhere near correct, could it be possible for our sun to cast the shadows as seen in the photographic evidence?

I’m not a proponent of Flat Earth; I’m a proponent of an open mind in where the view of one’s understanding can be changed through knowledge.

.

Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« Reply #53 on: April 16, 2016, 07:49:28 AM »
So far there has still been no suggestion of what other light source is creating these shadows.

Uninvited Guest thinks it may be something else but doesn't have any idea what (?!)

If a fat kid is locked in a room, alone with a full jar of cookies, and when you open the room after some time the cookies are all gone, do you conclude that the cookies were eaten by the fat kid or that some other mysterious force is at work?


Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« Reply #54 on: April 16, 2016, 08:47:03 AM »
I'm sorry but the burden of proof lies with you. If you are asserting there is an additional light source in our solar system then you are going to have to show something to back that up. Otherwise all you are doing is what you are claiming Ecthelion is doing.

Yeah, because your round Earth scientists always back their theories up with tons of evidence, right?  ::)

And here we see a wild Jroa in its natural habitat, answering a request for evidence with a sarcastic comment instead of actual evidence, as wild Jroas tend to do when cornered.

Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« Reply #55 on: April 16, 2016, 11:24:03 AM »
Reading through all the post here:

The obit of planets around the sun as reported by NASA are elliptical, NASA shows the below figures in different distances depending on location of planets along their elliptical path. They at times are closer or further out depending on its location of orbit around the sun. However if earth is stationary and everything revolves around the earth as proposed by FE proponents then I will use an “averaged” distance.

Average distance to sun from earth as reported by NASA = 93,000,000 miles
Average distance to Jupiter from earth as reported by NASA = 787,000,000 miles
Commonly used FE distance to sun from earth = 3000 miles

NASA sun distance of 93,000,000 / FE sun distance of 3000 = 31000
According to FE math the sun is approximately 31,000 times closer to earth than told to us by NASA
Then extrapolate this figure to determine a FE distance to Jupiter
787,000,000 / 31,000 = 23,387 miles, of course this is assuming there would also be an equivalent reduction in the NASA reported size of Jupiter it’s moons and other Heavenly bodies the same as FE proponents have recalculated the size of the sun. If all of these averages and recalculations were anywhere near correct, could it be possible for our sun to cast the shadows as seen in the photographic evidence?

I’m not a proponent of Flat Earth; I’m a proponent of an open mind in where the view of one’s understanding can be changed through knowledge.

.

I doubt you are going to get any flat Earther to admit to any distances, that would mean math could be done. They still can't give a measurement from South America to Australia, just that the one we have is wrong.

Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« Reply #56 on: April 20, 2016, 04:20:55 AM »
So in conclusion;

I have presented evidence of shadows cast on planets and can supply much more evidence.

This means that the planets 100% are not producing their own light.

This means that there is definitely an exterior light source illuminating these planets.

Seeing as the only light source bright enough to cast shadow is our Sun, then we have to conclude that the Sun is illuminating all of the planets.

This means that it is impossible that the sun is 3000 miles overhead and must be much further away providing light for the entire solar system.

This debunks the standard FE model entirely and puts this nonsense to rest!

*

Uninvited Guest

  • 213
  • A clone cloned by a smartphone
Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« Reply #57 on: April 20, 2016, 07:35:10 AM »
So in conclusion;

I have presented evidence of shadows cast on planets and can supply much more evidence.

This means that the planets 100% are not producing their own light.

This means that there is definitely an exterior light source illuminating these planets.

Seeing as the only light source bright enough to cast shadow is our Sun, then we have to conclude that the Sun is illuminating all of the planets.

This means that it is impossible that the sun is 3000 miles overhead and must be much further away providing light for the entire solar system.

This debunks the standard FE model entirely and puts this nonsense to rest!

Nobody agreed, except you with yourself. Where are you pulling these conclusions from?
The science in her trance will make the sign of cross
And we will light bonfires to appreciate the electric bulb.

Re: Shadows in the Solar System
« Reply #58 on: April 20, 2016, 11:24:11 AM »
So in conclusion;

I have presented evidence of shadows cast on planets and can supply much more evidence.

This means that the planets 100% are not producing their own light.

This means that there is definitely an exterior light source illuminating these planets.

Seeing as the only light source bright enough to cast shadow is our Sun, then we have to conclude that the Sun is illuminating all of the planets.

This means that it is impossible that the sun is 3000 miles overhead and must be much further away providing light for the entire solar system.

This debunks the standard FE model entirely and puts this nonsense to rest!

Nobody agreed, except you with yourself. Where are you pulling these conclusions from?

From the fact that in nearly 1000 views there has been not one valid argument.