Composition of the Sun?

  • 57 Replies
  • 5980 Views
Composition of the Sun?
« on: May 22, 2017, 01:22:03 AM »
We all share one thing where ever we live and it is an undeniable fact that we are all here by virtue of the heat from our sun. This one fact I am sure we can all agree on, even the most angry cowboy/cowgirl flat earth believer could not deny this.

There is a conjecture that JRowe produced that postulates the physical nature of the sun. He makes claims that it is made from metal and stone as described in the following extract from his dual earth conjecture.

The stars, sun, moon and other planets are all the same kind of entity: rock and metal. They resemble spotlights: a metal core with dull rock on the outside. The metal is heated white-hot by friction, though all are heated to different degrees depending on locations. Some are impure, also, giving some texture.

As this claim is fairly central to his conjecture, and he presents it as a serious scientific document, how well can it stand up to the scrutiny of science? I am sure there are many contributors who could cast the eye of science on his claim.


If I'm a complete Idiot for not believing in your Heliocentric fairytale then so be it.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Composition of the Sun?
« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2017, 05:46:47 AM »
Zammo, please learn to post an argument rather than just state what it is you believe. The means by which we've analysed the Sun has a whole host of issues; as with much of science it is based on what comes before. Science is based on standing on the shoulders of giants, you cannot pluck one area completely out of context and expect it to stand in every other model.
Specifically, spectroscopy only a) tells us certain elements are present and b) relies on light and its path/dispersion being set in stone. As you're no doubt aware, the distance and contents of the gap between the Earth and the Sun is markedly different in RET, FET and DET.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Composition of the Sun?
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2017, 05:57:21 AM »
Zammo, please learn to post an argument rather than just state what it is you believe. The means by which we've analysed the Sun has a whole host of issues; as with much of science it is based on what comes before. Science is based on standing on the shoulders of giants, you cannot pluck one area completely out of context and expect it to stand in every other model.
Specifically, spectroscopy only a) tells us certain elements are present and b) relies on light and its path/dispersion being set in stone. As you're no doubt aware, the distance and contents of the gap between the Earth and the Sun is markedly different in RET, FET and DET.

You know as well as I do that the above comment makes no sense whatsoever.
The light we recieve on the earth is light from the sun.
Analyse that light and it will reveal the nature of the materials that produced it. There is no way around that.

Can you expand on your comment so that I can understand better the point you are attempting to make.

the Sun has a whole host of issues; as with much of science it is based on what comes before.

What are the host of issues?
How have you discovered them?
What science are you eluding to?

Ps
Are you going to respond to my answer to your challenge?

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Composition of the Sun?
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2017, 06:03:24 AM »
Quote
Are you going to respond to my answer to your challenge?
I've only just logged on, I haven't looked at every thread on the site yet.

Quote
What are the host of issues?
I gave them in my post. if you've read DET enough to get to the Sun, I'd assume you know the completely different route from the Sun to the Earth's surface. Observations are only useful when you know what you're observing.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Composition of the Sun?
« Reply #5 on: May 22, 2017, 06:22:06 AM »
Quote
Are you going to respond to my answer to your challenge?
I've only just logged on, I haven't looked at every thread on the site yet.

Quote
What are the host of issues?
I gave them in my post. if you've read DET enough to get to the Sun, I'd assume you know the completely different route from the Sun to the Earth's surface. Observations are only useful when you know what you're observing.

And what are the nature of the observations you have? And why has no other observer.....observed them?
Does it never make you think that you might just be seeing things? Or possibly just making stuff up?

What is the difference between making things up and.....
Presenting claims with no real evidence?

The stuff you put forward on your conjecture does not rank as evidence.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Composition of the Sun?
« Reply #6 on: May 22, 2017, 06:28:34 AM »
Quote
And what are the nature of the observations you have? And why has no other observer.....observed them?

They're observations made by multiple people, not just me. Everyone's observed them, there are just more than one explanation for any observations.

Quote
The stuff you put forward on your conjecture does not rank as evidence.
I am still waiting for you to justify this claim.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Composition of the Sun?
« Reply #7 on: May 22, 2017, 06:30:22 AM »
I have to come clean.....I am a silly boy, I missed the most important part of your evidence that claims the sun is 'inside' the earth?......that right inside not 93 million miles away.......but inside. I know this sounds very very strange but here is the quotation form JRowe.


Sun
This is one of the harder parts to understand but, if you learn about aetheric transmission, it is far from bizarre as it first sounds. Everything builds on something else: you must understand the building blocks to understand the later results.
The sun is inside the earth: it is the source of geothermal energy, and our magnetic field (recalling that it is made of metal). Its light and much of its heat is carried by aether, however: clearly such things move through space. This is what we see in the sky, on each side of the world: the image of the same sun.


So what are the building blocks?
What is the thing that hangs in the sky that lights up the earth?
Why has everyone missed this?
But above all are you really serious?

Re: Composition of the Sun?
« Reply #8 on: May 22, 2017, 06:31:49 AM »
Quote
And what are the nature of the observations you have? And why has no other observer.....observed them?

They're observations made by multiple people, not just me. Everyone's observed them, there are just more than one explanation for any observations.

Quote
The stuff you put forward on your conjecture does not rank as evidence.
I am still waiting for you to justify this claim.

I am waiting to justify your claim that imps cause magnetism and the sun is inside the earth.....I can't believe I just typed that!

Re: Composition of the Sun?
« Reply #9 on: May 22, 2017, 06:36:11 AM »
Quote
And what are the nature of the observations you have? And why has no other observer.....observed them?

They're observations made by multiple people, not just me. Everyone's observed them, there are just more than one explanation for any observations.

Quote
The stuff you put forward on your conjecture does not rank as evidence.
I am still waiting for you to justify this claim.

Could you name these multiple people and provide links. Do they also believe in magnetic imps and that the sun is inside the earth?

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Composition of the Sun?
« Reply #10 on: May 22, 2017, 06:42:04 AM »
Quote
So what are the building blocks?
What is the thing that hangs in the sky that lights up the earth?
Why has everyone missed this?
But above all are you really serious?
What do you think it achieves to pluck a few lines out of any context? The building blocks are explained, the Sun is in the sky, we observe it just fine. Stop whinging. You said you were giving a fair hearing, all I'm seeing is plain idiocy. What kind of person starts a book at the end?
Congratulations! You've noticed nothing makes sense out of context. Do you want a reward?

Did you know elementary particles are both particles and waves? Crazy huh, it makes no sense, that'd mean everything they're made of is both a wave and a particle and- oh, wait, maybe there's more to it and you shouldn't act like a colossal moron and act like all you need to do is read one or two lines out of context and assume that's all there is.

Quote
I am waiting to justify your claim that imps cause magnetism and the sun is inside the earth....
I never said imps cause magnetism, as I have told you multiple times. It was an example of a ridiculous notion, and why it is we need to be able to sort between models. If you had any brain whatsoever you would have noticed that I followed it up by explaining how it is we know imps don't cause magnetism, and why it is an absurd thing to suppose. But, no, you're just interested in mocking rather than thinking, aren't you?
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Composition of the Sun?
« Reply #11 on: May 22, 2017, 07:05:44 AM »
Quote
So what are the building blocks?
What is the thing that hangs in the sky that lights up the earth?
Why has everyone missed this?
But above all are you really serious?
What do you think it achieves to pluck a few lines out of any context? The building blocks are explained, the Sun is in the sky, we observe it just fine. Stop whinging. You said you were giving a fair hearing, all I'm seeing is plain idiocy. What kind of person starts a book at the end?
Congratulations! You've noticed nothing makes sense out of context. Do you want a reward?

Did you know elementary particles are both particles and waves? Crazy huh, it makes no sense, that'd mean everything they're made of is both a wave and a particle and- oh, wait, maybe there's more to it and you shouldn't act like a colossal moron and act like all you need to do is read one or two lines out of context and assume that's all there is.

Quote
I am waiting to justify your claim that imps cause magnetism and the sun is inside the earth....
I never said imps cause magnetism, as I have told you multiple times. It was an example of a ridiculous notion, and why it is we need to be able to sort between models. If you had any brain whatsoever you would have noticed that I followed it up by explaining how it is we know imps don't cause magnetism, and why it is an absurd thing to suppose. But, no, you're just interested in mocking rather than thinking, aren't you?

Can you not make your mind up? Is the sun in the sky or is it inside the earth?

Why did you put a ridiculous notion under evidence? Can I remind you of your words...where do you mention it's a ridiculous notion?

For example, magnetism. One possible explanation is that certain metals are inhabited by invisible imps that like metal and hold onto it. That would explain how magnets can hold paperclips aloft. It would not really explain magnetic fields, which we observe by iron filings, or he earth’s magnetic field. So if something explains more than one thing, it is more likely to be true. That is not enough, however.

Where in you evidence is there any evidence?.....or is it evidence without evidence?

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Composition of the Sun?
« Reply #12 on: May 22, 2017, 07:07:12 AM »
Quote
Is the sun in the sky or is it inside the earth?
Read the model already, why do you love to make claims about something you haven't even read?

Quote
Why did you put a ridiculous notion under evidence? Can I remind you of your words...where do you mention it's a ridiculous notion?
...When I point out they don't explain observations in basically the next sentence, maybe? Grow up.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Composition of the Sun?
« Reply #13 on: May 22, 2017, 07:50:24 AM »
Oh boy, we're back to the ole' hard-done-by shtick where "nobody listens" and everyone "plucks things out of context". Yawn!

Here's a wild thought JR: maybe we're confused about your "model" because very little makes any logical sense and that there are yawning gaps in your ideas and exceedingly little detail about important things, like for instance, sunrise and sunset.

I've told you this before, but your conjecture leaves so much room for interpretation, it's laughable that you claim things in your model are "rigorously defined". Again, back to the sunrise/sunset, this is what you say to explain it:

Quote
In the very center, we will have the Sun. The largest (at the core of the aetheric flow), which rotates. Its image will be projected to the top and bottom, and it will rotate on the spot due to the whirlpool. As it turns, the location we view it to be will vary, until it faces away from us: at that point, we will observe a sunset, as the non-illuminated rock faces the flow of aether that carries the sunlight. There will also be a slight variation in vertical inclination as the Earth tilts, varying with the time of the year. This causes the seasons, and acts as an analogue to the classical FE answer: the light of the Sun (and the stars) is sometimes more directed to the northern hemiplane, and sometimes more directed to the southern.

Now, I know I'm not the only one who doesn't understand what the hell I just read. You actually believe this explanation is clear and "logically follows" from your evidence-free assertions about a non-existent "aether". It's absolutely laughable. Do you honestly believe this "explanation" is scientific? How is the sun "facing away" from the flow of aether? Why is the sun observed to appear and disappear from the top-down and bottom-up for a sunrise and sunset, respectively? How is this in any way compatible with your explanation of it "facing away from us"? How?!?

Secondly, since you objected to this being posted in the other thread, I'll post here it here again:

Quote
Apparently, the sun, moon & most/all of the observable universe exists in a "low concentration of aether" at the center of the Earth, between our two pizza-hemidisks. You then go on to say that there is "there is no distance between the top, and the bottom" which then must mean that most/all of the observable universe exists in literally no space at all. I'm using your own logic here and taking it to its own logical conclusion. If no space (ie. "distance") exists between the hemidisks, how can objects exist in this no space? It should be noted that you don't even say, for instance, infinitesimally small distance/space between these two points; you literally say no distance/space.

Again, there is so much nonsense to deal with in your model, it's really hard to even articulate what exactly I'm struggling with because it's all so... incoherent. That's the best way to describe it. Maybe if you made a few more diagrams about sunrise/sunset, I could better grasp just what the hell you're talking about.

 

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Composition of the Sun?
« Reply #14 on: May 22, 2017, 07:59:03 AM »
Quote
there are yawning gaps in your ideas and exceedingly little detail about important things,

Ditto.
Do you realize how little substance there are to your objections? Given how often you've made similar posts I'm not sure you do. There is no possible way for me to respond to a complete lack of an argument.
You think my overview is unclear. Great. I've started threads on that subject before. There aren't responses, the best case scenario is people quoting random bits, but you never say why.

Quote
You actually believe this explanation is clear and "logically follows" from your evidence-free assertions about a non-existent "aether". It's absolutely laughable.
Leaving aside the lie and personal attacks about aether, you give no indication as to why it doesn't. The best you offer, in this one case, are tangentially related questions that themselves hold little water.

Quote
How is the sun "facing away" from the flow of aether? Why is the sun observed to appear and disappear from the top-down and bottom-up for a sunrise and sunset, respectively? How is this in any way compatible with your explanation of it "facing away from us"? How?!?
The Sun no longer faces in one particular direction, when it rotates. This is the definition of rotation; thus the flow in that direction no longer meets the lit face of the Sun. If you place a torch on the ground, and rotate it, clearly the beam rotates with it, moving onto new areas.
The top-down/bottom-up aspect is simply down to the fact it is rotating out of view. What you observe is the unlit face cutting off the lit, from your perspective. It is absolutely compatible because it is just the same principle at work.

If you were to ask simple questions like this, which takes all of two lines, instead of page-long rants about grievances, much more might be achieved.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Composition of the Sun?
« Reply #15 on: May 22, 2017, 02:42:33 PM »
Quote
Is the sun in the sky or is it inside the earth?
Read the model already, why do you love to make claims about something you haven't even read?

Quote
Why did you put a ridiculous notion under evidence? Can I remind you of your words...where do you mention it's a ridiculous notion?
...When I point out they don't explain observations in basically the next sentence, maybe? Grow up.

I have read it....

In it you state..

The sun is inside the earth: it is the source of geothermal energy, and our magnetic field (recalling that it is made of metal). Its light and much of its heat is carried by aether, however: clearly such things move through space. This is what we see in the sky, on each side of the world: the image of the same sun.


So I'll ask the question again if the sun is at the centre of the earth as you clearly state:-

How can we see it in the sky?
How does its light reach us?
How do earth based astronomers observe the sun by looking at it in the sky?
Where is your proof for such an assertion?
Do you actually believe what you have stated?

That's five questions about your statement, let's see how many you answer.




Re: Composition of the Sun?
« Reply #16 on: May 22, 2017, 02:54:25 PM »
Quote
And what are the nature of the observations you have? And why has no other observer.....observed them?

They're observations made by multiple people, not just me. Everyone's observed them, there are just more than one explanation for any observations.

Quote
The stuff you put forward on your conjecture does not rank as evidence.
I am still waiting for you to justify this claim.

My claim is fully justified if you read your own dual earth conjecture.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Composition of the Sun?
« Reply #17 on: May 22, 2017, 03:13:02 PM »
Quote
My claim is fully justified if you read your own dual earth conjecture.
If this is going to be your answer, then it'll be mine to. Your objections are fully answered if you actually read the model rather than, as ever, plucking two or three sentences out of all context.

Is this a good enough answer for you? If not, why did you provide it?
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Composition of the Sun?
« Reply #18 on: May 22, 2017, 05:23:36 PM »
Zammo, please learn to post an argument rather than just state what it is you believe. The means by which we've analysed the Sun has a whole host of issues; as with much of science it is based on what comes before. Science is based on standing on the shoulders of giants, you cannot pluck one area completely out of context and expect it to stand in every other model.
Specifically, spectroscopy only a) tells us certain elements are present and b) relies on light and its path/dispersion being set in stone. As you're no doubt aware, the distance and contents of the gap between the Earth and the Sun is markedly different in RET, FET and DET.

My post was neither an argument nor a statement. It is simply a link to the composition of the sun based on spectroscopic data with references. That you believe the light from the sun passes through fairy dust is of no concern to me or anyone else. I could theorise the sun's light comes from Zeus lighting his farts. So what? No bonkers theories will change scientific consensus without a solid, logical foundation and working model.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2017, 05:26:57 PM by Zammo »
If I'm a complete Idiot for not believing in your Heliocentric fairytale then so be it.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Composition of the Sun?
« Reply #19 on: May 22, 2017, 05:26:32 PM »
Quote
My post was neither an argument nor a statement. It is simply a link to the composition of the sun based on spectroscopic data with references. That you believe the light from the sun passes through fairy dust is of no concern to me or anyone else.
We're all well aware of those statements. If you're not even going to try to refute FET or DET there is no point in posting.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Composition of the Sun?
« Reply #20 on: May 22, 2017, 05:37:15 PM »
Quote
My post was neither an argument nor a statement. It is simply a link to the composition of the sun based on spectroscopic data with references. That you believe the light from the sun passes through fairy dust is of no concern to me or anyone else.
We're all well aware of those statements. If you're not even going to try to refute FET or DET there is no point in posting.

Well if you're not going to try and refute my Zeus fart lighting theory, perhaps you shouldn't be posting as well.
If I'm a complete Idiot for not believing in your Heliocentric fairytale then so be it.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Composition of the Sun?
« Reply #21 on: May 22, 2017, 05:43:39 PM »
Quote
Well if you're not going to try and refute my Zeus fart lighting theory, perhaps you shouldn't be posting as well.


Thank you for making it clear what kind of conversation you're interested in. Goodbye.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Composition of the Sun?
« Reply #22 on: May 22, 2017, 05:56:13 PM »
Quote
Well if you're not going to try and refute my Zeus fart lighting theory, perhaps you shouldn't be posting as well.


Thank you for making it clear what kind of conversation you're interested in. Goodbye.

Oh, come on JRowe. I think there is some real merit in the Zeus Lit Flatulence Theory. I'll flesh it out a little today.
If I'm a complete Idiot for not believing in your Heliocentric fairytale then so be it.

Re: Composition of the Sun?
« Reply #23 on: May 22, 2017, 09:55:42 PM »
Quote
Is the sun in the sky or is it inside the earth?
Read the model already, why do you love to make claims about something you haven't even read?

Quote
Why did you put a ridiculous notion under evidence? Can I remind you of your words...where do you mention it's a ridiculous notion?
...When I point out they don't explain observations in basically the next sentence, maybe? Grow up.

I have read it....

In it you state..

The sun is inside the earth: it is the source of geothermal energy, and our magnetic field (recalling that it is made of metal). Its light and much of its heat is carried by aether, however: clearly such things move through space. This is what we see in the sky, on each side of the world: the image of the same sun.


So I'll ask the question again if the sun is at the centre of the earth as you clearly state:-

How can we see it in the sky?
How does its light reach us?
How do earth based astronomers observe the sun by looking at it in the sky?
Where is your proof for such an assertion?
Do you actually believe what you have stated?

That's five questions about your statement, let's see how many you answer.

And as everyone can see JRowe has evaded all my questions again.....he's a slippery customer.

Re: Composition of the Sun?
« Reply #24 on: May 22, 2017, 10:15:31 PM »
Quote
My claim is fully justified if you read your own dual earth conjecture.
If this is going to be your answer, then it'll be mine to. Your objections are fully answered if you actually read the model rather than, as ever, plucking two or three sentences out of all context.

Is this a good enough answer for you? If not, why did you provide it?

Let's remember what this thread is about.....it's about the nature of our sun. JRowe describes it like this in his conjecture. This is the complete paragraph just as he wrote it with no omissions.....prizes for those who can spot any evidence. Though he does say it's one of the harder parts to understand......well that's one thing we can all agree about! And as for sounding bizzare....he's dead right there bizzare with knobs on.

Sun
This is one of the harder parts to understand but, if you learn about aetheric transmission, it is far from bizarre as it first sounds. Everything builds on something else: you must understand the building blocks to understand the later results.
The sun is inside the earth: it is the source of geothermal energy, and our magnetic field (recalling that it is made of metal). Its light and much of its heat is carried by aether, however: clearly such things move through space. This is what we see in the sky, on each side of the world: the image of the same sun.


Everything......now what does he mean by everything? Whatever it is it builds on something else.... and of course we have to Understand the building blocks! I think it's about as clear as mud.

Now if anyone can find any evidence for any of what he claims there will be a prize.

He complained that I plucked his paragraph out of context!......they were lifted straight out his  rambling evidence free conjecture. ......and he still  evades my questions.

When anyone presents a lecture, they always have a Q and A where the audience are given the chance to ask questions. You have presented some ideas for discussion and I would like to ask you some questions that are not addressed in your 'conjecture'.

My questions
What evidence do you have that the sun is made from metal and stone and not mainly from Hydrogen and Helium as years of study and observations have shown.

Why do you claim that the sun is at the centre of the earth, when observation from any earth bound telescope will clearly show that.

How can your conjecture explain planetary transits?....as you missed that bit out.

Re: Composition of the Sun?
« Reply #25 on: May 23, 2017, 01:24:53 AM »
Quote
Well if you're not going to try and refute my Zeus fart lighting theory, perhaps you shouldn't be posting as well.


Thank you for making it clear what kind of conversation you're interested in. Goodbye.

Come to think of it, as you fail to mention it in any part of your conjecture, which type of stone and what metals do you think the Sun are composed of ?

Re: Composition of the Sun?
« Reply #26 on: May 23, 2017, 02:30:12 AM »
Ditto.
Do you realize how little substance there are to your objections? Given how often you've made similar posts I'm not sure you do. There is no possible way for me to respond to a complete lack of an argument.
You think my overview is unclear. Great. I've started threads on that subject before. There aren't responses, the best case scenario is people quoting random bits, but you never say why.

Odd. My objection contained multiple questions which you attempt to answer below, so what on earth are you talking about?

Secondly, if nearly everyone who comes across your rambling wall-of-text "model" says they can't understand it, are confused or object to the brief and bland descriptions given, does this not point to things either a) not being explained properly, b) does not contain enough detail to curtail confusion, c) is poorly written or d) all of the above? Is that not an explanation? Are such complaints not pointing to obvious deficiencies about your "model"? It's very clear nobody really understands what they've read on your site given  the rudimentary questions they ask.

I think a review of your wall-of-text is in order at the very least.

Quote
Leaving aside the lie and personal attacks about aether, you give no indication as to why it doesn't. The best you offer, in this one case, are tangentially related questions that themselves hold little water.

How can I "personally" attack your aether? What the actual fuck...? Are we back to it being a sentient being again? Also, what "lie" are you referring to? If it's about you having no evidence for your aether being real, that's not a lie, that is axiomatic to everyone.

Secondly, I don't understand what you mean by "you give no indication as to why it doesn't". Why it doesn't what?

Everything you ascribe to aether already has very well-defined phenomena and, better yet, actually has a rigorous mathematical framework that works and from which we can make predictions about, so what need is there for your aether?

Quote
This is the definition of rotation; thus the flow in that direction no longer meets the lit face of the Sun.

What flow? Flow of aether? Flow of the whirlpool?
What direction?
Is the sun a spheroid in your world, or is it a spotlight? I ask because because when you say the lit face of the Sun, that implies to me that sun either isn't always shining or it's a spotlight.

Again, these bland, detail-free "explanations" aren't satisfactory in the slightest.

Quote
The top-down/bottom-up aspect is simply down to the fact it is rotating out of view.

So a reflection off the 'aether dome' or whatever is rotating out of view? I don't understand why this only coincides with the physical horizon where we observe it appearing and disappearing. I also don't understand why climbing to a higher elevation when this reflection is "cutting off" I can then see more or less of it when it is setting or rising, respectively.

Again, a diagram would greatly help out here.

Quote
What you observe is the unlit face cutting off the lit, from your perspective. It is absolutely compatible because it is just the same principle at work.

So... just to reiterate: the unlit face cutting off the lit... from my perspective. I have no idea what this means. It is meaningless gibberish even taking in the entire context of your "model".

Why is the "unlit" face "cutting off" the lit face? I feel making a dirty joke but... I'm just so confused. From what I think I understand, the aether carries the light from the sun in the center of Earth to an aether dome of some sort whereby what we see is just a reflection of the sun projected into the sky... because simple elegance! you say so. Is that how it goes? I'm really confused over why the aether just "cuts off" the light from the sun but only at the horizon.

You know JR, there is a much simpler and much more elegant explanation for this so... just let me know if you'd like for me to explain that.

Quote
If you were to ask simple questions like this, which takes all of two lines, instead of page-long rants about grievances, much more might be achieved.

Well, erm.. I'll just have to take your word for that because I don't see you engage in much discussion with anyone. It's nearly always a circular argument with you. JB took you to task in another thread and you stopped engaging with him, despite him clearly explaining his objections to your assertions.

But hey, maybe this will be different.


*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Composition of the Sun?
« Reply #28 on: May 23, 2017, 05:44:04 AM »
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html?m=1
You take out first prize for spamming!

But that site would be better entitled:
200 Proofs that Eric Dubay does not Understand the Globe or Physics.
because that's all it is.

Most flat earth proofs turn out to be:
"I don't understand the Globe, and that proves that the earth is flat."
or
"I don't understand the Physics, and that proves that the earth is flat."
Well, no it doesn't! All it proves is that Flat Earther "doesn't understand Physics or the Globe!"
And Eric Dubay is no exception.

You may (or may not) be interested in:

Re: Composition of the Sun?
« Reply #29 on: May 23, 2017, 05:44:37 AM »
Ditto.
Do you realize how little substance there are to your objections? Given how often you've made similar posts I'm not sure you do. There is no possible way for me to respond to a complete lack of an argument.
You think my overview is unclear. Great. I've started threads on that subject before. There aren't responses, the best case scenario is people quoting random bits, but you never say why.

Odd. My objection contained multiple questions which you attempt to answer below, so what on earth are you talking about?

Secondly, if nearly everyone who comes across your rambling wall-of-text "model" says they can't understand it, are confused or object to the brief and bland descriptions given, does this not point to things either a) not being explained properly, b) does not contain enough detail to curtail confusion, c) is poorly written or d) all of the above? Is that not an explanation? Are such complaints not pointing to obvious deficiencies about your "model"? It's very clear nobody really understands what they've read on your site given  the rudimentary questions they ask.

I think a review of your wall-of-text is in order at the very least.

Quote
Leaving aside the lie and personal attacks about aether, you give no indication as to why it doesn't. The best you offer, in this one case, are tangentially related questions that themselves hold little water.

How can I "personally" attack your aether? What the actual fuck...? Are we back to it being a sentient being again? Also, what "lie" are you referring to? If it's about you having no evidence for your aether being real, that's not a lie, that is axiomatic to everyone.

Secondly, I don't understand what you mean by "you give no indication as to why it doesn't". Why it doesn't what?

Everything you ascribe to aether already has very well-defined phenomena and, better yet, actually has a rigorous mathematical framework that works and from which we can make predictions about, so what need is there for your aether?

Quote
This is the definition of rotation; thus the flow in that direction no longer meets the lit face of the Sun.

What flow? Flow of aether? Flow of the whirlpool?
What direction?
Is the sun a spheroid in your world, or is it a spotlight? I ask because because when you say the lit face of the Sun, that implies to me that sun either isn't always shining or it's a spotlight.

Again, these bland, detail-free "explanations" aren't satisfactory in the slightest.

Quote
The top-down/bottom-up aspect is simply down to the fact it is rotating out of view.

So a reflection off the 'aether dome' or whatever is rotating out of view? I don't understand why this only coincides with the physical horizon where we observe it appearing and disappearing. I also don't understand why climbing to a higher elevation when this reflection is "cutting off" I can then see more or less of it when it is setting or rising, respectively.

Again, a diagram would greatly help out here.

Quote
What you observe is the unlit face cutting off the lit, from your perspective. It is absolutely compatible because it is just the same principle at work.

So... just to reiterate: the unlit face cutting off the lit... from my perspective. I have no idea what this means. It is meaningless gibberish even taking in the entire context of your "model".

Why is the "unlit" face "cutting off" the lit face? I feel making a dirty joke but... I'm just so confused. From what I think I understand, the aether carries the light from the sun in the center of Earth to an aether dome of some sort whereby what we see is just a reflection of the sun projected into the sky... because simple elegance! you say so. Is that how it goes? I'm really confused over why the aether just "cuts off" the light from the sun but only at the horizon.

You know JR, there is a much simpler and much more elegant explanation for this so... just let me know if you'd like for me to explain that.

Quote
If you were to ask simple questions like this, which takes all of two lines, instead of page-long rants about grievances, much more might be achieved.

Well, erm.. I'll just have to take your word for that because I don't see you engage in much discussion with anyone. It's nearly always a circular argument with you. JB took you to task in another thread and you stopped engaging with him, despite him clearly explaining his objections to your assertions.

But hey, maybe this will be different.

I get the feeling our mutual 'friend' or should it be fiend!...is either as mad as a bag of turnips, or is rolling around on the floor laughing fit to burst at the way he has been yanking all our chains.......though my preferred option is the bag of turnips.