[geckothegeek]

The proposition that all celestial bodies are disc shaped seems to support an incredibly geocentric model of the universe.

What is even more incredible is the fact that there are no proofs (astronomical/historical data) that the Earth ever orbited the Sun before 1800 AD.

So the earth IS the center of the universe? Yet again, you're not answering my questions but supplying preposterous half-assed responses that only remotely brush the subject matter in an attempt to mask your own lack of real data or change the subject altogether.

Brother, you're so far out in left field you're buried up to your neck in the warning track.

If you have been on this website for any length of time you should be familiar with sandkohan's  modus operandi. I learned that a long time ago.

[Disgraced_Shield]

The proposition that all celestial bodies are disc shaped seems to support an incredibly geocentric model of the universe.

What is even more incredible is the fact that there are no proofs (astronomical/historical data) that the Earth ever orbited the Sun before 1800 AD.

So the earth IS the center of the universe? Yet again, you're not answering my questions but supplying preposterous half-assed responses that only remotely brush the subject matter in an attempt to mask your own lack of real data or change the subject altogether.

Brother, you're so far out in left field you're buried up to your neck in the warning track.

If you have been on this website for any length of time you should be familiar with sandkohan's  modus operandi. I learned that a long time ago.

I think I'm starting to get the hang of it, and I recognize it from MY line of work in 'the real world.'

Evasive language, using too many words to say nothing, adamant refusal to answer simple questions out of fear of being trapped into an admission or mistake...these are clear symptoms of people who KNOW they've got something wrong, but can't- or won't admit it, either out of pride or for fear of ramifications.

I think the guy's been resting on the laurels handed to him from some of the simpler FE proponents for so long, that its gone to his head, and by now he's lying to THEM as much as he's lying to us, simply for the sake of his own ego.

Don't like that assessment? Try a 'yes' or 'no' answer from time to time- or- God forbid..an "I don't know."

Before I get the chop for 'no post content' - I'll go backwards and ask again.

Are all celestial bodies discs? If so, why are none observed to be anything but exactly 'round' when viewed through telescopes which you yourself can buy? How do you explain that every other celestial body seems to be 'looking' right at us?

[andruszkow]

And to add to the question:

If Round Earth "Theory" is so far out because it would imply an unrealistic amount of stuff happening "by chance"; If all celestial bodies are in fact discs but every single one of them is facing us, wouldn't that also be an unrealistic amount of stuff happening "by chance" ?

[sandokhan]

The Moon has astonishing synchronicity with the Sun. When the Sun is at its lowest and weakest in mid-winter, the Moon is at its highest and brightest, and the reverse occurs in mid-summer. Both set at the same point on the horizon at the equinoxes and at the opposite point at the solstices. What are the chances that the Moon would naturally find an orbit so perfect that it would cover the Sun at an eclipse and appear from Earth to be the same size? What are chances that the alignments would be so perfect at the equinoxes and solstices?

    Farouk El Baz,
    NASA

see also the following message (Who Parked Our Moon):

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3431.msg77361#msg77361


It can be proven immediately that the shape of the Sun must be that of a disk (and not spherical):

Impossibility of a round Sun shape:

"The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun. Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

Near the polar regions of the sun, streamers of the corona are observed, which prolong still more the axial length of the sun.

If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary)."



Solar Atmosph. Pressure as a Function of Depth (official science information)

Depth (km) % Light from this Depth Temperature (K) Pressure (bars)

0 99.5 4465 6.8 x 10-3
100 97 4780 1.7 x 10-2
200 89 5180 3.9 x 10-2
250 80 5455 5.8 x 10-2
300 64 5840 8.3 x 10-2
350 37 6420 1.2 x 10-1
375 18 6910 1.4 x 10-1
400 4 7610 1.6 x 10-1

This table indicates that the solar atmosphere changes from being almost completely transparent to being almost opaque over a distance of about 400 km. Notice also that in this region the temperature drops rapidly as we near the surface, and that the pressure (measured in bars, where one bar is the average atmospheric pressure at the surface of the Earth) is very low - generally 1% or less of Earth surface atmospheric pressure.

[andruszkow]

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

But the Sun does not have low gravitational pressure, you're mixing stuff up. Inside a star, the inward force of gravity is "balanced" by the outward force of pressure.

Great copy/paste of http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/sun/photosphere.html by the way.

Here's some reading for you:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1924ApJ....59..197R

[sandokhan]

By precipitously answering in such a manner, you are not doing the RE any favors at all.

Obviously, you haven't done any homework on the subject.

Let me do it for you.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/s7.htm


But the gases of the solar atmosphere are under a very weak pressure.

Please read again.

Solar Atmosph. Pressure as a Function of Depth (official science information)

Depth (km) % Light from this Depth Temperature (K) Pressure (bars)

0 99.5 4465 6.8 x 10-3
100 97 4780 1.7 x 10-2
200 89 5180 3.9 x 10-2
250 80 5455 5.8 x 10-2
300 64 5840 8.3 x 10-2
350 37 6420 1.2 x 10-1
375 18 6910 1.4 x 10-1
400 4 7610 1.6 x 10-1

This table indicates that the solar atmosphere changes from being almost completely transparent to being almost opaque over a distance of about 400 km. Notice also that in this region the temperature drops rapidly as we near the surface, and that the pressure (measured in bars, where one bar is the average atmospheric pressure at the surface of the Earth) is very low - generally 1% or less of Earth surface atmospheric pressure.


Therefore, the GRAVITATIONAL-PRESSURE BALANCE is totally lacking.

Then, A NEW FORCE HAS TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR: THE CENTRIFUGAL FORCE OF ROTATION.

Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

Near the polar regions of the sun, streamers of the corona are observed, which prolong still more the axial length of the sun.


Inside a star, the inward force of gravity is "balanced" by the outward force of pressure.

The inward force of gravity is just a hypothesis: all I have to do is remind you of the Double Forces of Attractive Gravitation Paradox, to see the fallacy in such a concept.

But we also have the solar neutrinos paradox.

Sun Neutrino Paradox

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

http://www.jyi.org/volumes/volume9/issue2/features/cull2.html

The explanation offered in the 1930s by H. Bethe (thrown out of Germany for incompetence) is completely wrong, and the modern arguments using the tau-neutrino/muon-neutrino (from electron-neutrino), and a fourth type of neutrino, do not work either.

A work which shows that the sun neutrino problem has not been solved at all:

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm

The 'missing neutrinos' problem is a serious one. *Corliss considers it 'one of the most significant anomalies in astronomy.' (W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1987), p. 40.)


It is hoped that some type of 'barrier' will yet be found which is shielding the earth so that solar neutrinos which ought to be there since the hydrogen fusion theory 'has to be correct'will yet be discovered. But Larson takes a dim view of the situation.

'The mere fact that the hydrogen conversion process can be seriously threatened by a marginal experiment of this kind emphasizes the precarious status of a hypothesis that rests almost entirely on the current absence of any superior alternative. 'Dewey B. Larson, Universe in Motion (1984), p. 11.


Scientists have searched for incoming solar neutrinos since the mid-1960s, yet hardly any arrive to be measured. Yet, they dare not accept the truth of the situation, for that would mean an alternative which would shatter major evolutionary theories.

[andruszkow]

This is like talking to a kiwi.

Can you FE'ers bring someone of competence on the line, please?

[Disgraced_Shield]

*mic drop*

Case dismissed.

[Fat Earl]

Photographs taken by Thierry Legault, a photographer just as famous as Fred Bruenjes.

THE BLACK SUN, 2003 ANTARCTICA PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY FRED BRUENJES

Could this be Rahu in Vedic cosmology?

[sandokhan]

It is Rahu.

Rahu = Black Sun = Fenrir = South Star (Pawnee cosmology)

Its color is actually a very deep red; it emits laevorotatory subquarks, or vril.

[andruszkow]

It is Rahu.

Rahu = Black Sun = Fenrir = South Star (Pawnee cosmology)

Its color is actually a very deep red; it emits laevorotatory subquarks, or vril.

... Fenrir? Thor called, he wants his mythological creatures for himself.

[sandokhan]

Tyr = Polaris star

[selfawarebear]

So the mathematics that NASA use isn't flawed then, The Horizon curves by: sqrt(radius^2 + distance^2)-radius, equivalent to distance^2/R*2. At 100 km, it the horizon descends 784 metres. So where I live I can stand on a hill which 130 metres high look roughly due south and see a mountain range 35km away and behind that see the top of a mountain which is 800 metres high ans 100km away which means by the curvature calculations that NASA and pretty much every geo scientist uses the mountain would have to be 1584 metres high for me to see it...

[andruszkow]

So the mathematics that NASA use isn't flawed then, The Horizon curves by: sqrt(radius^2 + distance^2)-radius, equivalent to distance^2/R*2. At 100 km, it the horizon descends 784 metres. So where I live I can stand on a hill which 130 metres high look roughly due south and see a mountain range 35km away and behind that see the top of a mountain which is 800 metres high ans 100km away which means by the curvature calculations that NASA and pretty much every geo scientist uses the mountain would have to be 1584 metres high for me to see it...

Atmospheric refraction buddy, you can't rely on Pythagoras alone to explain everything.

[ZombieLenin]

GPS, I already said that in the link I gave you, which you obviously didn't read.

And please, saying GPS isn't a reliable source is just digging the already pretty deep hole even deeper.

It would be fairly simple to calculate the altitude from the radio signals as there's usually 5 or 6 amateur trackers receiving the signal

And of course GPS does not really exist, it's all faked since, for it to be real there must be satellites in geosynchronous orbit--in space. Space flight as you know, along with every scientific observation that contradicts "flat earth," was faked.  This also makes me wonder how I get my satellite television.

PS. You FE guys are the best metatrolls on the internet. 10/10

[Bookish Neptune]

GPS, I already said that in the link I gave you, which you obviously didn't read.

And please, saying GPS isn't a reliable source is just digging the already pretty deep hole even deeper.

It would be fairly simple to calculate the altitude from the radio signals as there's usually 5 or 6 amateur trackers receiving the signal

And of course GPS does not really exist, it's all faked since, for it to be real there must be satellites in geosynchronous orbit--in space. Space flight as you know, along with every scientific observation that contradicts "flat earth," was faked.  This also makes me wonder how I get my satellite television.

PS. You FE guys are the best metatrolls on the internet. 10/10

Sarcasm is indeed the most intellectual action a human can take within a discussion. It always makes your argument bright and clear and understandable.

See what I did there?

Here, let me do it again...

Ever heard of google? Ever heard of the ionosphere?

It's not possible at all to bounce radio and t.v. images off the ionosphere.

Also, we never had t.v. images transmitted through a clothes hanger stuck into the back of the t.v. while growing up. And digital broadcasts through the air are not happening now.

So how do you get those images on your little box? Hmm... well try turning off your little box and research.

There is a whole lot of information waiting out there and none exist in your little box you call a t.v.

Are you still wondering how your little dish get images onto your little t.v.?

Clothes hangers.... Clothes hangers... if a clothes hanger 30 years ago obtained reception, and provided a clear picture, I don't see how that little dish is any harder to comprehend.

I'd like to go into further details but I may be off topic. PM me if you'd like to know how your little dish really works.

Put a little metal bowl onto your roof and it must be satellites! It can't be anything else!

Sarcasm gotta love it!

[Rayzor]

GPS, I already said that in the link I gave you, which you obviously didn't read.

And please, saying GPS isn't a reliable source is just digging the already pretty deep hole even deeper.

It would be fairly simple to calculate the altitude from the radio signals as there's usually 5 or 6 amateur trackers receiving the signal

And of course GPS does not really exist, it's all faked since, for it to be real there must be satellites in geosynchronous orbit--in space. Space flight as you know, along with every scientific observation that contradicts "flat earth," was faked.  This also makes me wonder how I get my satellite television.

PS. You FE guys are the best metatrolls on the internet. 10/10

Sarcasm is indeed the most intellectual action a human can take within a discussion. It always makes your argument bright and clear and understandable.

See what I did there?

Here, let me do it again...

Ever heard of google? Ever heard of the ionosphere?

It's not possible at all to bounce radio and t.v. images off the ionosphere.

Also, we never had t.v. images transmitted through a clothes hanger stuck into the back of the t.v. while growing up. And digital broadcasts through the air are not happening now.

So how do you get those images on your little box? Hmm... well try turning off your little box and research.

There is a whole lot of information waiting out there and none exist in your little box you call a t.v.

Are you still wondering how your little dish get images onto your little t.v.?

Clothes hangers.... Clothes hangers... if a clothes hanger 30 years ago obtained reception, and provided a clear picture, I don't see how that little dish is any harder to comprehend.

I'd like to go into further details but I may be off topic. PM me if you'd like to know how your little dish really works.

Put a little metal bowl onto your roof and it must be satellites! It can't be anything else!

Sarcasm gotta love it!

I thought it was you....  welcome to the serious debate. 

[awakekiwi]

Atmospheric refraction just doesnt add up sorry. All these photo examples sure they are a bit misty because where looking a long distance through a lot of air.. but theres no refraction going on at that altitude and no mirages or any kind of Atmospheric refraction.. its just not believable, light doesnt bend uniformly through air in this manner. It just doesnt. Im not a flat earther, im not a heliocentric believer either.
I simply see way too much evidence that tells me that we are been lied to about a lot of things. Apollo landings were obviously faked. We have astronauts falling over and then pretending to be helped up by another astronaught where its clearly obvious the guys on a wire and his buddy has done nothing to help him get up.. just one example.. clearly a lot of NASA imagery is faked. We can see this. So the question is why, and why are they still faking stuff on the ISS?
Im not gona debate any of this because its pointless. No one can convince anyone else of anything on this forum. Because people will believe whatever they want to believe. Thats historical fact. Im just here to say im certain we are been lied to about the curvature of the earth, the size of the earth and moon and sun and also the distance of the sun from the earth.. ive seen myself sun rays bursting through clouds not perpendicular, clearly spreading outwards from a sun close to the earth.
These are just my opinions. I dont care what anyone else thinks. You can debunk me if you want but it wont change my mind unless its really compelling.. saying stuff like its Atmospheric refraction isnt compelling at all to me.
Nicholson Morley and many other have shown that earth is stationary. Gravity is seriously misunderstood. I mean christ the idea that the earth can somehow cause everything on it to "gravitate" to it just because its really big is just plain ridiculous. Never been proven. All theory, no empirical evidence of gravity doing this.. cant be reproduced in any model or laboratory.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

ive seen myself sun rays bursting through clouds not perpendicular, clearly spreading outwards from a sun close to the earth.

No you haven't, take a slow look at this page; http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz946.htm

Somewhere somewhen, another school has failed.

[andruszkow]

Nicholson Morley and many other have shown that earth is stationary. Gravity is seriously misunderstood. I mean christ the idea that the earth can somehow cause everything on it to "gravitate" to it just because its really big is just plain ridiculous. Never been proven. All theory, no empirical evidence of gravity doing this.. cant be reproduced in any model or laboratory.

Cavendish experiment proves large objects attract smaller objects (noticeably, happens the other way around as well).

Also, you can't have an opinion about facts. It's either true or false, there's no "I think..." hidden in between.

Also, how can you in one single post state that "Moon landing were obviously faked" while complaining about missing empirical evidence and present none yourself? Besides, look up the difference between theory and observation, it appears you don't get the concepts of scientific methodology.

In other news, CERN is currently having measurements evaluated and analyzed for a possible discovery of a new particle. Measurements that can be anything from statistical randomness to the footprint of a particle (Or binary particle) that could prove the existence of gravitons for all we know.

Amazing how science seeks to challenge itself on current knowledge constantly, while religion and sites like this (basically the same thing) don't. At all.