Jupiter and its moons

  • 35 Replies
  • 1154 Views
?

alex314

  • 206
  • Truth, knowledge and science.
Jupiter and its moons
« on: September 02, 2019, 10:25:36 PM »
Question for flat earthers:

Is Jupiter and its (4 large) moons fake?

*

Shifter

  • 11212
  • ASI
Re: Jupiter and its moons
« Reply #1 on: September 02, 2019, 11:04:18 PM »
Question for flat earthers:

Is Jupiter and its (4 large) moons fake?

You clearly have more you want to say on the subject. Your question feels like it has that entrapment vibe. Whatever it you want to say on the matter just say just say it!  :)

?

alex314

  • 206
  • Truth, knowledge and science.
Re: Jupiter and its moons
« Reply #2 on: September 02, 2019, 11:10:16 PM »
Question for flat earthers:

Is Jupiter and its (4 large) moons fake?

You clearly have more you want to say on the subject. Your question feels like it has that entrapment vibe. Whatever it you want to say on the matter just say just say it!  :)

Well, flat earthers always say its all fake. So I wanted to know if they think that Jupiter and the moons are also fake. And how it is possible that I have observed Jupiter and the 4 large moons myself!

What is the flat-earthers standpoint here?

*

Shifter

  • 11212
  • ASI
Re: Jupiter and its moons
« Reply #3 on: September 02, 2019, 11:12:07 PM »
Question for flat earthers:

Is Jupiter and its (4 large) moons fake?

You clearly have more you want to say on the subject. Your question feels like it has that entrapment vibe. Whatever it you want to say on the matter just say just say it!  :)

Well, flat earthers always say its all fake. So I wanted to know if they think that Jupiter and the moons are also fake. And how it is possible that I have observed Jupiter and the 4 large moons myself!

What is the flat-earthers standpoint here?

Flat earthers have not said it is 'all' fake. They say the Earth is flat. Not necessarily that every planet and moon is flat. Earth is special

?

alex314

  • 206
  • Truth, knowledge and science.
Re: Jupiter and its moons
« Reply #4 on: September 02, 2019, 11:14:39 PM »

Flat earthers have not said it is 'all' fake. They say the Earth is flat. Not necessarily that every planet and moon is flat. Earth is special

Yes, but do they think Jupiter and its moons are real? If so, what is it? Is it a planet? A projection? What governs the movement of the moons? Is it built in into a telescope? Am I an agent? What do they think???

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4575
Re: Jupiter and its moons
« Reply #5 on: September 02, 2019, 11:38:23 PM »
All planets/stars have a discoidal shape (including Jupiter and its satellites).

As an example, here is the proof for the Sun:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939765#msg1939765

However, modern astrophysics cannot explain the current orbit of Jupiter.

Here is the FLUX OF GRAVITONS PARADOX:

How a three body system cannot function given the attractive gravity scenario - for a better visualization, use Sun - Jupiter - Io

"OBJECTIVE: Demonstrate that this interchange of gravitational particles again will seem to result in violations of conservation of energy. We will do this by demonstrating that, if matter is indeed influenced by gravitational particles, then, even under normal orbital conditions, gravity should decrease, due to a gravitational shadowing effect. This shadowing effect would violate conservation of energy.

Thought Experiment: IMAGINE THAT GRAVITONS BEHAVE LIKE PHOTONS

(for descriptive purposes only)

To better visualize how this partial gravitational influence might be encountered, let us describe gravity and gravitational interaction in terms of light, so that:

If gravitons exist, violations of the Law of Conservation of Energy will almost certainly occur.

Brilliance of light = gravitational attraction = (emission of gravitons)

Decreasing Transparency = Increasing Density and Mass

In this thought experiment, we will specify one sun, one earth and one moon. Each will be partially luminous, to simulate their 'output' of gravitons, and each will also be partially opaque, to indicate their 'capturing-of' or their 'reception-of' gravitons. We would then have the following description of the system.

In this imaginary system, the moon orbits the earth, and the earth-moon pair orbits the sun. Since glow will simulate gravity emitted, we could describe this sun as glowing brighter that this earth, and this earth as glowing brighter than the moon.

In addition, the moon would be more transparent than the earth, and the earth would be less transparent than the sun. This would simulate the increasing 'interception' of gravity, with an increase of both the density and mass from the moon, to the earth then to the sun in our imaginary example.

In this example, the light from the sun would 'attract' the earth and the moon (simulating the pull of gravity). The earth would glow less brilliantly than the sun, but still brighter than the moon. The moon would be attracted to both the earth and the sun, but would orbit the earth. The earth moon pair would then orbit the sun together.

In this example, the moon would spend more time in the earth's shadow, and the earth's shadow would be comparatively darker than the moon's shadow. Since the moon would be attracted to the sun only by the light from the sun, and the light emitted by the earth with the sun shining through the less transparent earth would be less than the light emitted by the sun directly, the moon would gain some amount of orbital distance from the sun every time the moon 'hid' in the earth's shadow.

This gain of gravitational energy, simulated in this example with light and transparency, {for visual purposes only}, would violate conservation of energy. If gravitons exist, they must self-condradictingly pass through nearer masses unaffected, so as not to decrease gravity for masses at a further distance, while still interacting with those closer masses at the same time.

Otherwise, we are left with the choice that masses at a distance will randomly gain some gravitational potential energy depending on whether randomly distributed nearer masses create a gravitational 'shadow' effect. We are once again led to the conclusion that gravitons, if they exist, must create violations of conservation of energy. This is hardly a reliable theoretical endorsement of gravitons, when conservation of energy must fall by the wayside in order to allow gravitons to exist. A much more logical conclusion is again, gravitons do not exist, and cannot exist. Some other method of explaining gravitational interactions must be needed."

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2002552#msg2002552

Plasma Flux Transfer Events between Saturn and the Sun


On a different but related subject, if gas had an effect on objects in a vacuum we would expect to find an example in nature.

"Saturn's moon Enceladus, for example, shoots a jet of water ice 500 KM into space. The diameter of the moon itself is only 500 KM. Does this jet have any effect? No. The jet as tall as the moon is wide goes harmlessly off into space."

https://www.space.com/22181-saturn-moon-enceladus-water-geysers.html

https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/science/enceladus/




?

alex314

  • 206
  • Truth, knowledge and science.
Re: Jupiter and its moons
« Reply #6 on: September 03, 2019, 12:02:27 AM »
All planets/stars have a discoidal shape (including Jupiter and its satellites).

As an example, here is the proof for the Sun:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939765#msg1939765

However, modern astrophysics cannot explain the current orbit of Jupiter.

Here is the FLUX OF GRAVITONS PARADOX:

How a three body system cannot function given the attractive gravity scenario - for a better visualization, use Sun - Jupiter - Io

"OBJECTIVE: Demonstrate that this interchange of gravitational particles again will seem to result in violations of conservation of energy. We will do this by demonstrating that, if matter is indeed influenced by gravitational particles, then, even under normal orbital conditions, gravity should decrease, due to a gravitational shadowing effect. This shadowing effect would violate conservation of energy.

Thought Experiment: IMAGINE THAT GRAVITONS BEHAVE LIKE PHOTONS

(for descriptive purposes only)

To better visualize how this partial gravitational influence might be encountered, let us describe gravity and gravitational interaction in terms of light, so that:

If gravitons exist, violations of the Law of Conservation of Energy will almost certainly occur.

Brilliance of light = gravitational attraction = (emission of gravitons)

Decreasing Transparency = Increasing Density and Mass

In this thought experiment, we will specify one sun, one earth and one moon. Each will be partially luminous, to simulate their 'output' of gravitons, and each will also be partially opaque, to indicate their 'capturing-of' or their 'reception-of' gravitons. We would then have the following description of the system.

In this imaginary system, the moon orbits the earth, and the earth-moon pair orbits the sun. Since glow will simulate gravity emitted, we could describe this sun as glowing brighter that this earth, and this earth as glowing brighter than the moon.

In addition, the moon would be more transparent than the earth, and the earth would be less transparent than the sun. This would simulate the increasing 'interception' of gravity, with an increase of both the density and mass from the moon, to the earth then to the sun in our imaginary example.

In this example, the light from the sun would 'attract' the earth and the moon (simulating the pull of gravity). The earth would glow less brilliantly than the sun, but still brighter than the moon. The moon would be attracted to both the earth and the sun, but would orbit the earth. The earth moon pair would then orbit the sun together.

In this example, the moon would spend more time in the earth's shadow, and the earth's shadow would be comparatively darker than the moon's shadow. Since the moon would be attracted to the sun only by the light from the sun, and the light emitted by the earth with the sun shining through the less transparent earth would be less than the light emitted by the sun directly, the moon would gain some amount of orbital distance from the sun every time the moon 'hid' in the earth's shadow.

This gain of gravitational energy, simulated in this example with light and transparency, {for visual purposes only}, would violate conservation of energy. If gravitons exist, they must self-condradictingly pass through nearer masses unaffected, so as not to decrease gravity for masses at a further distance, while still interacting with those closer masses at the same time.

Otherwise, we are left with the choice that masses at a distance will randomly gain some gravitational potential energy depending on whether randomly distributed nearer masses create a gravitational 'shadow' effect. We are once again led to the conclusion that gravitons, if they exist, must create violations of conservation of energy. This is hardly a reliable theoretical endorsement of gravitons, when conservation of energy must fall by the wayside in order to allow gravitons to exist. A much more logical conclusion is again, gravitons do not exist, and cannot exist. Some other method of explaining gravitational interactions must be needed."

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2002552#msg2002552

Plasma Flux Transfer Events between Saturn and the Sun


On a different but related subject, if gas had an effect on objects in a vacuum we would expect to find an example in nature.

"Saturn's moon Enceladus, for example, shoots a jet of water ice 500 KM into space. The diameter of the moon itself is only 500 KM. Does this jet have any effect? No. The jet as tall as the moon is wide goes harmlessly off into space."

https://www.space.com/22181-saturn-moon-enceladus-water-geysers.html

https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/science/enceladus/





What are you talking about? This looks like a mashup of physical terms, not making any sense. I appreciate if you can explain slowly of what you mean.

What have 'gravitons' to do with it?

Also, of course the orbit can be explained by gravity alone. I have done a simulation myself!

*

sokarul

  • 16127
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Jupiter and its moons
« Reply #7 on: September 03, 2019, 12:05:52 AM »
Gravitons are string theory, not the currently excepted theory.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

?

alex314

  • 206
  • Truth, knowledge and science.
Re: Jupiter and its moons
« Reply #8 on: September 03, 2019, 12:06:55 AM »
Gravitons are string theory, not the currently excepted theory.

Yes - no gravitons required to explain the motions in the solar system.

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 17072
  • "Umm, WTF ???"
Re: Jupiter and its moons
« Reply #9 on: September 03, 2019, 01:02:43 AM »
Gravitons are string theory, not the currently excepted theory.

Yes - no gravitons required to explain the motions in the solar system.


Please explain how gravity operates without a force carrier.
RE can never win this argument.
FE can't be disproved.

*

sokarul

  • 16127
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Jupiter and its moons
« Reply #10 on: September 03, 2019, 01:10:49 AM »
Gravitons are string theory, not the currently excepted theory.

Yes - no gravitons required to explain the motions in the solar system.


Please explain how gravity operates without a force carrier.

Spacetime is bent. Also currently accepted theory of gravity says itís not a force.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2019, 01:12:34 AM by sokarul »
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 17072
  • "Umm, WTF ???"
Re: Jupiter and its moons
« Reply #11 on: September 03, 2019, 02:00:24 AM »
Gravitons are string theory, not the currently excepted theory.

Yes - no gravitons required to explain the motions in the solar system.


Please explain how gravity operates without a force carrier.

Spacetime is bent. Also currently accepted theory of gravity says itís not a force.

That's an observation. I'm asking for the mechanism.
RE can never win this argument.
FE can't be disproved.

*

rabinoz

  • 22675
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Jupiter and its moons
« Reply #12 on: September 03, 2019, 02:50:12 AM »
All planets/stars have a discoidal shape (including Jupiter and its satellites).
No they are not! Look at photos of the Sun, Jupiter or Saturn. They always look circular.

Jupiter's full rotation in 2014 best edition! by Michael A. Phillips


Quote from: sandokhan
As an example, here is the proof for the Sun:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939765#msg1939765
There is no proof in there! You just assume that the "atmospheric pressure" of the sun should be related only on the surface gravity.
But that if totally fallacious.

The atmospheric pressure on earth is simply the weight of atmosphere above one unit area of earth.
The area would be in one square metre if the pressure is to be in Pa/m2.

And it would be similar on the sun, but the sun has no clearly defined solid surface, so "atmospheric pressure" depends entirely on where it is measured.

So you claims in SOLAR DISK: THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF A SPHERICALLY SHAPED SUN have no relevance.

Quote from: sandokhan
However, modern astrophysics cannot explain the current orbit of Jupiter.
Please explain!

Quote from: sandokhan
Here is the FLUX OF GRAVITONS PARADOX:
If you want to debate gravitons you could make a separate thread but
                 just as a flux of photons is not the cause of static magnetic or electric fields
                 neither are gravitons hypothesised as the cause of static gravitational fields.

But since gravitons form no part of modern gravitational theory I'll not go further into that here.

Quote from: sandokhan
On a different but related subject, if gas had an effect on objects in a vacuum we would expect to find an example in nature.

"Saturn's moon Enceladus, for example, shoots a jet of water ice 500 KM into space. The diameter of the moon itself is only 500 KM.

Does this jet have any effect? No. The jet as tall as the moon is wide goes harmlessly off into space."
https://www.space.com/22181-saturn-moon-enceladus-water-geysers.html
https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/science/enceladus/


Why would a "jet of water vapor and ice particles" have "have any effect"?
  • Do you have any evidence that "this jet" does not "have any effect" at all.

  • If the mass of the "jet of water vapor and ice particles" is very much less than the mass of Enceladus there will be negligible effect on the motion of Enceladus.

    And from the photo you show the plume seems to have little substance and it presumably falls back to Enceladus.

?

alex314

  • 206
  • Truth, knowledge and science.
Re: Jupiter and its moons
« Reply #13 on: September 03, 2019, 02:52:58 AM »
Gravitons are string theory, not the currently excepted theory.

Yes - no gravitons required to explain the motions in the solar system.

That is irrelevant to my original question.


Please explain how gravity operates without a force carrier.

That is irrelevant to my original question. Gravity can explain the orbits of planets and moons.

What gravity really is, what the force carrier is -  that is an entire different question.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2019, 02:54:35 AM by alex314 »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4575
Re: Jupiter and its moons
« Reply #14 on: September 03, 2019, 03:05:23 AM »
The Sun does have a solid surface, multiple proofs available:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2075989#msg2075989

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2090897#msg2090897

You simply haven't done your homework on the subject.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939765#msg1939765

The proof is very direct, using Clayton's equation which is very accurate, as the graphs show.

Here is the official pressure of the chromosphere of the Sun:



PRESSURE: 10-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR

The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.

Completely unexplained by modern science.

Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

NO further recourse can be made for gravity.

Gravity has already balanced out as much as was possible of the gaseous pressure, and still we are left with A VERY LOW PRESSURE.

Solar gravity has balanced out the thermal pressure.

At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.

That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.

As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.

The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.


Go ahead and plug the numbers in the Clayton equation.

Here are the final results:

ac/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26


Therefore, you haven't the foggiest idea of what you are talking about.


Do you have any evidence that "this jet" does not "have any effect" at all.

The proof is in the orbit itself.

ANY disturbance of this orbital stability would lead to chaos, even by some mere meters.

If the mass of the "jet of water vapor and ice particles" is very much less than the mass of Enceladus there will be negligible effect on the motion of Enceladus.

ANY negligible effect would lead to orbital instability.

The exhaust is distributed over a huge area, encompassing at least a single hemisphere.

And no, the water vapor does not fall back on Enceladus, it is being ejected into the vacuum of space.


?

alex314

  • 206
  • Truth, knowledge and science.
Re: Jupiter and its moons
« Reply #15 on: September 03, 2019, 04:36:21 AM »
The Sun does have a solid surface, multiple proofs available:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2075989#msg2075989

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2090897#msg2090897

You simply haven't done your homework on the subject.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939765#msg1939765

The proof is very direct, using Clayton's equation which is very accurate, as the graphs show.

Here is the official pressure of the chromosphere of the Sun:



PRESSURE: 10-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR

The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.

Completely unexplained by modern science.

Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

NO further recourse can be made for gravity.

Gravity has already balanced out as much as was possible of the gaseous pressure, and still we are left with A VERY LOW PRESSURE.

Solar gravity has balanced out the thermal pressure.

At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.

That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.

As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.

The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.


Go ahead and plug the numbers in the Clayton equation.

Here are the final results:

ac/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26


Therefore, you haven't the foggiest idea of what you are talking about.


Do you have any evidence that "this jet" does not "have any effect" at all.

The proof is in the orbit itself.

ANY disturbance of this orbital stability would lead to chaos, even by some mere meters.

If the mass of the "jet of water vapor and ice particles" is very much less than the mass of Enceladus there will be negligible effect on the motion of Enceladus.

ANY negligible effect would lead to orbital instability.

The exhaust is distributed over a huge area, encompassing at least a single hemisphere.

And no, the water vapor does not fall back on Enceladus, it is being ejected into the vacuum of space.


The post was about Jupiter, not about the components of the sun.

*

rabinoz

  • 22675
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Jupiter and its moons
« Reply #16 on: September 03, 2019, 04:37:24 AM »
The Sun does have a solid surface, multiple proofs available:
That's exactly what I said! So I'll delete your links!

But this thread is about "Jupiter and its moons"! Make your own thread about the sun if you want to debate that!
« Last Edit: September 03, 2019, 04:42:06 AM by rabinoz »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4575
Re: Jupiter and its moons
« Reply #17 on: September 03, 2019, 04:55:50 AM »
The Sun does have a solid surface, multiple proofs available:
That's exactly what I said! So I'll delete your links!

But this thread is about "Jupiter and its moons"! Make your own thread about the sun if you want to debate that!

I told you that you'd become, sooner or later, a flat earth believer.

SO YOU AGREE THAT THE SUN DOES HAVE A SOLID SURFACE.

Again, here is your quote:

The Sun does have a solid surface, multiple proofs available:
That's exactly what I said!

Then, there is no need to debate anymore: since the sun does have a solid surface after all, then the Earth is flat.


Yet, just minutes ago, you stated the OPPOSITE:

And it would be similar on the sun, but the sun has no clearly defined solid surface, so "atmospheric pressure" depends entirely on where it is measured.


Now, however, you have just declared that you are a flat earth believer:

The Sun does have a solid surface, multiple proofs available:
That's exactly what I said!


Re: Jupiter and its moons
« Reply #18 on: September 03, 2019, 08:49:11 AM »
Sandokhan's love of gish gallop as a way of escaping the problems of a flat earth are well known.

This post is about Jupiter and its moons.

FE says they are simply "luminaries". Lights in the sky. So how do they obviously orbit Jupiter? How do they cast shodows and have shadows cast on them?
« Last Edit: September 03, 2019, 10:40:32 PM by SpaceCadet »

Re: Jupiter and its moons
« Reply #19 on: September 03, 2019, 01:28:23 PM »
The motion of Jupiterís moons are well described by Newtonís law of Universal Gravitation, and Einsteinís Theory of General Relativity.  One day we may have a more complete theory of quantum gravity. 

So what?  None of this matters to the question, which is how do flat earthers account for them?

*

rabinoz

  • 22675
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Jupiter and its moons
« Reply #20 on: September 03, 2019, 03:25:48 PM »
The Sun does have a solid surface, multiple proofs available:
That's exactly what I said! So I'll delete your links!

But this thread is about "Jupiter and its moons"! Make your own thread about the sun if you want to debate that!
So you agree that the sun does have a solid surface.
No, I do not "agree that the sun does have a solid surface."

Quote from: sandokhan
Again, here is your quote: << There is no need to repeat it >>
No, I do not "agree that the sun does have a solid surface." but I made a mistake - big deal!

I did say that but I do apologise for misreading your post and thinking that for once in your life you were posting factual.
It should have been obvious that YOU would never be posting something factual but I was in a hurry and misread what you wrote!

So let's get this point quite clear, as far as it can be determined, THE SUN DOES NOT HAVE A SOLID SURFACE"!
Now I'm all embarrassed!
« Last Edit: September 03, 2019, 09:11:38 PM by rabinoz »

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 859
  • Physical Comedian
Re: Jupiter and its moons
« Reply #21 on: September 03, 2019, 03:42:53 PM »
I'd really like to know the name of one substance that could be anything other than gas(or plasma) at the Sun's temperatures.
Nullius in Verba

*

Shifter

  • 11212
  • ASI
Re: Jupiter and its moons
« Reply #22 on: September 03, 2019, 04:08:40 PM »
I'd really like to know the name of one substance that could be anything other than gas(or plasma) at the Sun's temperatures.

A combination of hafnium, nitrogen and carbon (HfN0.38C0.51) theoretically has the highest melting point of 4400 Kelvins


The surface of the sun would still melt it but lets say we found something that could withstand the heat and remain a solid, the radiation and forces from the sun is another question.

*

Stash

  • 3202
Re: Jupiter and its moons
« Reply #23 on: September 03, 2019, 04:19:33 PM »
I'd really like to know the name of one substance that could be anything other than gas(or plasma) at the Sun's temperatures.

A combination of hafnium, nitrogen and carbon (HfN0.38C0.51) theoretically has the highest melting point of 4400 Kelvins


The surface of the sun would still melt it but lets say we found something that could withstand the heat and remain a solid, the radiation and forces from the sun is another question.

The problem is the corona paradox of it being oddly way hotter than the photosphere of the sun which is around 5500 kelvins. If the sun were solid it's own corona would have melted it. Unless it was some kind of a substance that could withstand around 1m kelvins.

*

Yes

  • 247
Re: Jupiter and its moons
« Reply #24 on: September 04, 2019, 01:13:32 PM »
Sandokhan's love of gish gallop as a way of escaping the problems of a flat earth are well known.
I for one appreciate his conspiracy theory ADHD.  Sandokhan above anyone else understands that if the earth truly was flat, then you simply MUST throw out all of established science, history, and our modern understanding of reality.  It's all connected, see, and Sandokhan sees the connections.  He's the James Burke of the crackpot world.

In order for the Earth to be flat, then it must be that Jupiter is tiny, and its moons are hollow, and the sun is a solid, and there's also a black sun, of course, because that's where eclipses come from, because obviously if gravitons can be shielded then sub-ether aether boson bubble cosmic sacred inch 513.4 = 1381 - phi lambda / alter minus 12000 BC which was actually 1776 during the time of Jesus because the French Revolution skipped Easter because the sundial is wrong on round earth reeeeeeeee
You are asking me to defend flat earth by providing non religious, non conspiratorial and non alternative sources, and you know damn well that I can't do that

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4575
Re: Jupiter and its moons
« Reply #25 on: September 04, 2019, 01:20:04 PM »
there's also a black sun

There must be.

Here is the Allais effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382

*

rabinoz

  • 22675
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Jupiter and its moons
« Reply #26 on: September 04, 2019, 02:54:22 PM »
there's also a black sun

There must be.

Here is the Allais effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382
Your black sun hypothesis proves nothing until YOU prove that there cannot be any other cause of the Allias effect.

But other explanations have been offered and until you have proven all those and all other possible explanations impossible you haven't done that.

Here are couple of these "suggestions" that I've seen:
        The Cause of the Allais Effect Solved, International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 2017, 7, 69-90, by Bjarne Lorenzen
        Link between Allais effect and General Relativityís residual Arc during solar Eclipse by Bagdoo, Russell

So, you cannot yet say, "There must be".

*

mak3m

  • 333
Re: Jupiter and its moons
« Reply #27 on: September 04, 2019, 02:57:54 PM »
there's also a black sun

There must be.

Here is the Allais effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382

That's a bit of a leap.

The experiments cannot be fully replicated, but do conclude that there is a force acting on the instruments that currently cant be explained.

Thats how science works, hypothesis,  observation/experimentation, hypothesis and repeat.

You can't step off and say right that's it.

It's also not lost on me that RE is something you believe in again for this specific point?
Quote from: sandokhan

Therefore, one should ejaculate rarely (perhaps once every few months)


*

rabinoz

  • 22675
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Jupiter and its moons
« Reply #28 on: September 04, 2019, 03:06:05 PM »
Sandokhan's love of gish gallop as a way of escaping the problems of a flat earth are well known.
I for one appreciate his conspiracy theory ADHD.  Sandokhan above anyone else understands that if the earth truly was flat, then you simply MUST throw out all of established science, history, and our modern understanding of reality.  It's all connected, see, and Sandokhan sees the connections.  He's the James Burke of the crackpot world.

In order for the Earth to be flat, then it must be that Jupiter is tiny, and its moons are hollow, and the sun is a solid, and there's also a black sun, of course, because that's where eclipses come from, because obviously if gravitons can be shielded then sub-ether aether boson bubble cosmic sacred inch 513.4 = 1381 - phi lambda / alter minus 12000 BC which was actually 1776 during the time of Jesus because the French Revolution skipped Easter because the sundial is wrong on round earth reeeeeeeee
Plat Terra suggests a way of "PROVING THE PLANE EARTH" using aluminium foil.


Might said aluminium foil might be better utilised making Tin-Foil Hats for everybody ????

*

Plat Terra

  • 1121
  • I am a Neutral Flat Earther
Re: Jupiter and its moons
« Reply #29 on: September 04, 2019, 03:44:30 PM »
there's also a black sun

There must be.

Here is the Allais effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382

Has one wondered if the Black Sun causes the Moon phases?
« Last Edit: September 04, 2019, 05:05:33 PM by Plat Terra »
The Globe community is incapable of verifying Earth has the curvature calculated through experiment or claimed by anyone. They can measure a band of helium but they canít actually measure and verify the dictated curvature of any landmass or canal. Why not?